Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) Second Phase Final

Transcription

Ministry of the Environment
Water Environment
Partnership in Asia
Second Phase Final Report
Water Environment
Partnership in Asia
Ministry of the Environment, Japan
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Copyright © 2014 Ministry of the Environment, Japan. All rights reserved.
No parts of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing
from Ministry of the Environment Japan through the Institute for Global
Environment Strategies (IGES), which serves as the WEPA secretariat.
ISBN: 978- 4 -88788 -168-6
This publication is made as a part of WEPA and published by the Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Although every effort is made to
ensure objectivity and balance, the publication of study results does not imply
WEPA partner country’s endorsement or acquiescence with its conclusions.
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8795, Japan
Tel: +81-(0)3-3581- 3351
http://www.env.go.jp/en/
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan
Tel: +81-(0)46-855-3700
http://www.iges.or.jp/en/
The research team for WEPA Second Phase Final Report
includes the following IGES members:
[Drafting team]
Yatsuka Kataoka, Senior Coordinator (Networking and Outreach), Programme Management Office
Tetsuo Kuyama, Manager (Water Resource Management), Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
Pham Ngoc Bao, Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
[Supporting team]
Rina Hirano, Assistant Staff, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
Maiko Yoshizawa, Assistant Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
Printed in Japan
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Message from Ministry of the Environment, Japan
3
4
Summary of the 2nd phase of WEPA
6
Situation Analysis on Water Environmental Management
8
Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Asia
Messages from Partners
14
22
Industrial Wastewater Management
28
Climate Change and the Water Environment
32
37
Sri Lanka/Nepal
38
Philippines
40
Korea/Cambodia
42
Lao PDR/Malaysia
44
Indonesia/Thailand
46
Lao PDR/Thailand
48
Viet Nam/China
50
Japan
52
Appendix
55
WEPA Focal Points and Partners
56
WEPA Advisory Committee
57
List of Activities and publications of the 2nd phase
58
Introduction
Over the past two decades, Asia has seen remarkable growth, demonstrating a 120% increase
in GDP. The region has also accounted for 60% of the world’s population. According to “The
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Report 2013” published by the United Nations, it is
reported that Asian countries might be able to achieve many of the targets set by the MDGs in
2000 by 2015, although it might fail to meet some targets. Currently, Asia is a focal point for
rapid global economic growth. On the other hand, there has also been a negative environmental
impact behind this Asian growth. Rapid urbanisation, a sharp increase in population and
overdevelopment of industry have resulted in intense pressure on water resources both in
quantity and quality, which may become an obstacle for sustainable development. The United
Nations Environment Programme reported in 2004 that more than 85 % of wastewater is
discharged without treatment in both South Asia and East Asia. Significant time and cost must be
invested to improve water quality and restore aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, it is of the utmost
importance to manage water environment appropriately before it is destroyed.
There are various actors involved in water environmental management, including officers of
central and local governments, water experts, private sector, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and citizens. Among these actors, officials in central government play an important
role as they are primarily responsible for the planning and implementation of policies on waterenvironment management in each country. It is therefore important to build their capacity for
better water environment management. Officials in central government need to conduct planning
and implementation of policies based on appropriate information regarding methods and
technologies of water environment management suitable for the Asian region, but there is a lack
of such information in most developing countries in Asia.
Recognising this trend in Asia, the Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) was
proposed by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan in 2004 to strengthen water environmental
governance in the Asian region. WEPA conducts its activities on a 5-year cycle. Utilising the
knowledge accumulated and the human network developed in the first phase, the second phase of
WEPA focused on knowledge-sharing to find solutions to water environment problems. It would
certainly be a pleasure for me if we can find some “Asian Wisdom” in the shared knowledge,
which will contribute to sustainable development in the region.
March, 2014
Mitsumasa Okada
Chair of WEPA Advisor Meeting
1
2
Water
Wa
Wate
W
te
er En
E
Environment
viro
iro
ro
onme
nmen
n
e tP
Pa
Partnership
rtne
rt
n rsh
rshi
shi
hip in
hi
in As
A
Asi
Asia
s a (WEPA
WEPA)
Sec
Seco
ond
nd Phase
Phas
hase
ase
e Final
Fi al Report
Fin
Repor
Repor
po
ort
Second
Message from Ministry of the
Environment, Japan
Recognising that the improvement of water environmental governance is essential to solve water
pollution problems in the Asian region, the Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
was launched in 2004 by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The first phase of WEPA ran
until 2009, and during this time, it was realised that information sharing among stakeholders is
a key point for better water environmental governance. To this end, WEPA developed a human
network which was made up of policymakers dealing with water environmental management in
the Asian region, and at the same time created an information platform on water environment
in the region. Subsequently, the second phase of WEPA promoted knowledge sharing for
finding solutions through workshops and dialogues, a process which contributes to the water
environmental governance in respective WEPA countries.
This report aims to introduce the highlights of activities and the outcomes obtained in the
second phase of WEPA. First, it presents a summary of the outcomes obtained from activities
in the second phase tackling common issues in Asian region such as “Situation Analysis on
Water Environmental Management”, “Domestic Wastewater Treatment”, “Industrial Wastewater
Management” and “Climate Change and the Water Environment”. Second, it compiles the
messages from WEPA partners, which shows how their views reflect the activities in the second
phase. They also mention the current water pollution problems that WEPA countries are facing
as well as WEPA’s contribution to solving them. The report puts particular focus on how WEPA
partners utilised the knowledge and information obtained from WEPA for the improvement of
the water environmental management in their countries. Moreover, their expectations for future
WEPA actions are also stated in the report.
Finally, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the WEPA partners who contributed
to activities in the second phase of WEPA including writing messages for this report. It is my
sincere wish that many more people will take an interest in WEPA thanks to this report.
March, 2014
Masaaki Kobayashi
Director General
Environmental Management Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, Japan
3
A sound water environment is the key to securing access to safe water and a
healthy environment. In this context it is the mission of the Water Environment
Partnership in Asia (WEPA) to strengthen water environmental governance in
Asia via information and knowledge sharing.
WEPA FACTS
When did it start?
WEPA was proposed at the third World Water
Forum held in Kyoto Shiga, and Osaka in 2003
by Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and was
launched in 2004; activities follow a 5-year cycle,
the first phase of which comprised 11 countries;
phase two started in April 2009.
China
Partnership of
13 Asian Countries
13 countries in Asia
participates in WEPA
including Japan
Nepal
Who’s in it?
Myanmar
Lao PDR
Viet Nam
Thailand
Currently, 13 Asian countries; Nepal and Sri Lanka
joined for the second phase; each member country
appoints focal points who actively participate in
WEPA activities and facilitate the same in their
respective countries.
Japan
Republic of Korea
Philippines
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
Malaysia
Indonesia
How is it governed?
The plan of activities under WEPA is discussed and endorsed by WEPA partner
countries at the WEPA annual meeting. According to the plan the WEPA Secretariat
implements activities in close collaboration with partner countries.
The WEPA Database – an information platform
for water environmental management
Developed in collaboration with the partner countries, this
four-part database holds information on the related policies,
technologies and NGO & CBO activities, as well as links to
other resources.
Technology
Database
Wastewater treatment
facility under
operation in Asia
Policy Database
www.wepa-db.net
db
The database also holds the bulk of WEPA meeting
presentation material and publications.
Activities by
NGOs and CBOs
Water environmental
conservation
activities
4
Information
Source
Links to useful sites on
water environmental
management
-State of water
environment
-Legislative
framework, etc.
The Second Phase of WEPA
Based on the knowledge accumulated and the networks developed in the first phase, the second
phase (from 2009) aimed at further knowledge sharing and promotion via workshops and bilateral
dialogue between partner countries and Japan, the process of which has contributed to ongoing water
environmental management in the respective WEPA partner countries.
What’s new in phase two?
Water Environmental Management in Partner Countries; Progress Update
Progress in water environment management in the partner countries was ascertained (through
regular meetings such as annual meeting, questionnaire surveys, and expert interviews),
the results of which are published in a three-yearly publication, WEPA Outlook on Water
Environmental Management, launched at the World Water Forum. This is a key WEPA publication
informing of developments taking place on a country-by-country basis.
More Focused Discussion
To foster deeper discussion and information exchange, WEPA chose “domestic wastewater treatment” and
“climate change and the water environment” as focus themes. The on-line based WEPA policy briefs were
published on these topics.
To bolster information exchange between partner countries with similar policy interests and challenges, WEPA
organised a group workshop focusing on decentralised wastewater treatment in Indonesia, which reaped
discussions on policy, technologies and practices as well as site visits.
New Focus: Industrial Wastewater Management
Through close communication between the partner countries, industrial wastewater management (particularly,
enforcement and implementation of pollution control measures) has emerged as a common management issue.
WEPA responded from 2012 onwards by focusing on this problem in its ongoing discussions.
Collaboration with other organisations and initiatives
With support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), WEPA conducted training over three
years (2009-2011) on the topic of water environmental governance in Japan. The training aimed at enabling the
sharing of experiences of participating countries as well those of Japan.
As a part of collaboration with the Network of Asian River Basin Organisations (NARBO), NARBO secretariat staff
participated in WEPA International Workshops and Annual Meetings. From WEPA, Dr. Okada, a WEPA advisor and a
secretariat staffer joined the 4th General Meeting at Makassar, Indonesia in 2010. Dr. Okada gave a keynote
presentation in the session on water quality.
WEPA co-organised an international workshop with the Science Council of Japan at the fourth IWA-ASPIRE
Conference and Exhibition in Tokyo, 2011
5
Summary of the 2nd Phase of WEPA
YEAR
MONTH
Organised a dialogue in Indonesia (Jakarta)
Oct
2009
Nov
2010
OTHERS
YEAR
6
Organised the 1st International Workshop
“Coping Strategies for Water EnvironmentalChallenges in Asia”
and the 5th Annual Meeting (Hanoi, Viet Nam)
MONTH
EVENT
Sep
Conducted a JICA training and dialogue programme
“Workshop for Enhancement of the Governmental Capacity on
Water Environment in Asia Countries” (Yokohama, Japan)
Nov
Participated in the NARBO Meeting (Makassar, Indonesia)
Dec
Organised a dialogue in Nepal “State and Challenges of the
Water Environment in Nepal” (Katmandu)
Feb
Organised the 2nd WEPA International Workshop focusing on
“Climate Change Impacts to the Water Environment” and
the 6th Annual Meeting (Tokyo, Japan)
Interviews, site visits and questionnaire survey for domestic wastewater treatment
Questionnaire survey on the topic of climate change and the water environment
MONTH
Aug
2011
Water Environment in Asia Countries” (Yokohama, Japan)
Questionnaire survey on climate change impacts to the water environment
2011
YEAR
Dec
Mar
2010
OTHERS
EVENT
Sep
EVENT
Water Environment in Asia Countries” (Yokohama, Japan) Sep
Organised the 3rd International Workshop on the progress of water
environmental management and domestic wastewater treatment and
the 7th Annual Meeting (Manila, Philippines) Oct
Co-organised “International Workshop on Water Environment Partnership
in Asia for Sustainable Water Resources Management” with the Science
Council Japan at the 4th IWA-ASPIRE Conference & Exhibition (Tokyo, Japan) Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
2012
OTHERS
Mar
Registered “WEPA” as a solution for the
6th World Water Forum
Launch of WEPA Outlook on Water
Environmental Management 2012 at the
6th World Water Forum (Marseille, France) Interviews and site visit for the topic of domestic wastewater treatment
Interviews and site visit for water environmental management overall
YEAR
MONTH
2012
Aug
Organised a dialogue in Sri Lanka
“Industrial Wastewater Management in Sri Lanka” (Colombo) 2013
Feb
Organised the 4th International Workshop
“Decentralized Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Asia –how to promote
and manage?” and the 8th Annual Meeting (Siem Riep, Cambodia) OTHERS
YEAR
Interviews, site visits for domestic wastewater treatment
Interviews and site visits on the topic of industrial wastewater managementmanagement
MONTH
OTHERS
EVENT
May
Organised a session “Voice from
Asia for Better Water Quality – for
discussion toward Post-2015
Development Goals on water”
at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water
Summit (Chiang Mai, Thailand) Nov
Organised WEPA Group Workshop on “Decentralized Domestic Wastewater
Treatment in Asia” (Jakarta, Indonesia) Jan
Organised the 9th Annual Meeting (Hayama, Japan) and WEPA Seminar
“Current Situation and Future Prospect of Water Environment Governance
in Asia” (Tokyo, Japan) 2013
2014
EVENT
Interviews and site visit on industrial wastewater management
Launched WEPA policy briefs on-line
Annual Meeting and Workshop/Seminar -- WEPA facilitate partnership
WEPA has conducted its annual meetings in different WEPA countries, together with international workshops or
seminars. These meetings, held on a regular basis, facilitated partnerships among partner countries and contributed
to capacity development of WEPA partners though information exchange. In addition to these meetings, WEPA
dialogues were conducted to deepen understanding and encourage information exchange between Japan and
partner countries. Local stakeholders were invited to WEPA international workshops and dialogues to share their
views and information, which contributed to facilitating stakeholder interaction in host countries.
7
Situation Analysis on
Water Environmental Management
‘‘ Over the past few decades, Asia has been a focal point for the world’s rapid growth, demonstrating
a 120% increase in GDP in the region and accounting for 60% of the world’s population. Rapid
urbanization and the swift increase in population and economic development that are associated
with unsustainable development practices have resulted in intense pressure on water resources both
in quantity and quality, as well as on aquatic ecosystems in the region.
’’
Low water quality is one of the most pressing
environmental problems threatening human health
and sound economic development and still remains
a critical problem even in some areas of WEPA
partner countries that have mitigation or preventive
measures in place, especially urban areas. The partner
countries have each unilaterally developed policies
and measures both to combat the growing threat of
water pollution in critical areas and to avoid future
outbreaks in other areas.
Certain aspects of water environmental
management differ across the partner countries – due
to contextual factors such as the duration, gravity,
cause and level of socio-economic development – but
some, such as pollution source control, are common
to all as basic measures. Conducting reviews of
water environmental management in the partner
countries is useful in order to gauge what progress
has been made and to identify common management
challenges, as well as to promote more knowledgesharing for future WEPA activities. To this end this
summary of discussions on water environmental
management in the WEPA second phase gives
an overview of the state of water environmental
management and some of the common challenges
facing WEPA partner countries.
Goals and Targets of Water
Environmental Management
It is important to set clear policy objectives and
targets. Clear goal-setting enables actions taken
(WEPA Message 2012*)
by governments and managers of facilities that
discharge pollutants to be reviewed at a later
stage. Most WEPA countries have set out a basic
environmental law stipulating protection of
human health, ensuring a safe human environment
and protection of the environment as a basis for
sustainable development, and these objectives
also apply for water environmental management.
Myanmar has no such basic law but did pass the
“Environmental Conservation Law (2012)” in 2012.
More detailed definitions of water environmental
management objectives are laid out in laws or acts
specific to water pollution control in some countries,
such as the Sub-Decree on Water Pollution Control
(Cambodia), Water Pollution Control Law (Japan)
and Clean Water Act (the Philippines).
Ambient water quality standards are the
administrative targets dictating the levels of water
quality that need to be maintained. The following
table shows the status of standard-setting for ambient
water quality in each partner country. While most
WEPA countries have established such standards
for rivers, few have done so for groundwater, and
the standards set are mostly based on the domestic
conservation objectives of each country (i.e., health,
living environment, and ecosystem conservation).
Drinking water quality standards are used to
evaluate water quality in countries that have not set
ambient quality standards. No ambient water quality
standards exist in Myanmar, but deliberations are
now underway as mandated by the Environmental
Conservation Law passed in 2012. Sri Lanka sets
* WEPA Message 2012=”Message from WEPA: Water Quality Challenges in Asia for a Sustainable Future” from WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental
Management (http://www.wepa-db.net/pdf/1203outlook/01.pdf) pp.6-8.
8
Ambient water quality standards
For surface water*1
For marine and coastal
waters
For groundwater
Cambodia
China*2
Indonesia
*3
Japan
*4
Republic of Korea
*3
5
etc. *
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
Nepal*6
Philippines*7
Sri Lanka*8
Thailand
Viet Nam
note:
*1 Rivers and lakes and reservoirs.
*2 There are additional parameters for surface water serving as drinking water sources.
*3 A parameter for the aquatic ecosystem conservation is included under the living environmental standard.
*4 Water quality by grade & biological features of aquatic ecosystem.
*5 Groundwater standards are set for agricultural water, industrial water.
*6 Nepal sets water quality standards for different water use objectives. Standards for recreation and those for aquatic ecosystems were established.
*7 There are two types of standards for surface water- standards for toxins and other conventional parameters.
*8 Awaiting for approval of ambient water quality standards.
Legend:
Human health
Living environment
Ecosystem/Biodiversity
One type
etc.
Others
9
no ambient water quality standards either, but its
Central Environment Authority (CEA) has set forth
proposals, which are also used for water quality
evaluation.
Time-bound specific targets are set out in China,
Indonesia, Republic of Korea, and Viet Nam, and
periodical reviews are conducted. Cambodia, Sri
Lanka and Thailand have developed national water
environmental (or pollution control) plans and
strategies with specific time spans (Sri Lanka and
Introduction of Environmental
Impact Assessment
in Partner Countries
1970s: Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines
1980s: China, Indonesia, Korea
1990s: Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam
2000s: Lao PDR
Measures to ensure implementation
and compliance
Monitoring of ambient water quality is essential
to knowing whether quality standards are being met
and also to evaluate policy and any measures taken.
Ambient water quality monitoring is conducted on a
project basis or for specific purposes (e.g., irrigation
or drinking water) such as in Nepal, Myanmar and
Sri Lanka. Other countries have regular monitoring
systems especially for rivers but the number of
monitoring points, parameters and monitoring
frequency differ from country to country depending
on needs and institutional and financial capacity.
The factors of capacity and finances for monitoring,
storage and maintaining ambient water quality data
are often pointed out as key challenges.
‘‘ Bolster the scientific basis of policy making,
such as through effective monitoring systems
within limited budgets and improvements to
’’
data storage systems.
In many countries the state of water quality is mainly
reported to the general public via annually published
10
Thailand), but not necessarily with specific numerical
targets. In Japan, which has no specific plans or
strategies for water environmental management,
time-bound and specific targets are established for
certain water bodies under a total pollution load
control system.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is
used in most countries, particularly for industrial
and development activities with potentially high
environmental impact, to prevent pollution.
environmental quality reports. The Water Quality
Index (WQI) is used for evaluation of overall status
of water quality in some countries, such as China,
Malaysia and Thailand and the methods used for
WQI calculation are decided by each country. Other
countries performing annual assessments of water
quality (Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines and
Viet Nam) use specific parameters to represent water
quality (e.g., BOD or COD for organic pollution).
In some countries, such as China, Republic of
Korea and Thailand, the public can view real-time
monitoring data on a website, which is updated by
live feeds from monitoring stations.
All countries have set national effluent standards:
China, Lao PDR, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and
Viet Nam have set industrial effluent standards
according to the type of industry; Cambodia’s vary
according to proximity of pollution sources to
sensitive environmental or ecosystem conservation
areas; those of China, Indonesia, Lao PDR,
Malaysia and Sri Lanka were introduced or revised
since 2000 to strengthen effluent management;
Japan and Republic of Korea introduced a system
to control total pollution loads in specific water
bodies in addition to effluent control via pollutant
concentration; and Myanmar has effluent guidelines
for the industrial sector but has no standards for
effluent from domestic and agricultural sectors at the
national level.
‘‘ Review laws, regulations, and setting of
standards in consideration of socio-economic
conditions and the current state of the water
environment, such as effluent standards taking
into account the structure of industries and
quality of effluents.
’’
In the implementation stage, various measures to
ensure compliance are used. The introduction of
economic instruments such as Viet Nam’s wastewater
discharge fee is an area of growing interest for many
partner countries.
‘‘ Stipulate ‘the polluter pays’ principle in water
quality management and utilise market-based
’’
instruments as an incentive for compliance.
Inspections and penalties play an important role in
addressing non-compliance. Systems for inspection,
governmental guidance and penalties are in place in
countries which set effluent standards. Monitoring
of effluent quality is necessary to check on levels
of compliance with standards. Despite obligations
on owners or managers of pollution sources and
wastewater treatment facilities to monitor effluent
quality, this is not comprehensively carried out in
all countries and results sometimes do not reach the
intended authorities. In Cambodia and Sri Lanka
the central government conducts monitoring at sites
suspected of discharging high concentrations of
effluent; in Republic of Korea, centralised monitoring
of effluent using tele-metering was introduced
for pollution sources (industries and domestic
wastewater treatment facilities) exceeding certain
volumes; Malaysia introduced an on-line reporting
system for industry to self-report effluent monitoring
results through a website; and in Japan, recording
of monitoring results became mandatory under a
revision to the Water Pollution Control Law in 2010.
Institutional Arrangements
Roles of national and local government in water
quality management differ in respective WEPA
partner countries. In general, national government
sets overall goals, targets and rules and local
government implement them. Duplication and weak
coordination among relevant ministries and line
agencies in different sectors but related to water
quality management are ongoing issues for the
partner countries. Capacity development of local
governments is also a common challenge.
Local government is assumed to handle local
water environmental management in many countries.
Now a new concept termed ‘basin management’ is
incorporated in water environmental management
in some countries. In Viet Nam, for example, a
basin level management plan covering water quality
aspects in three major river basins is underway; in
the Philippines, “water quality management areas”
(under the Clean Water Act) have been created,
which are designated by hydrological instead of
administrative boundaries.
‘‘ Promote institutional and technical capacity
building of organizations in charge of water
environmental management at national and
local levels. Strengthen local management
of the water environment such through
the establishment of water environmental
management strategies and action plans at
’’
the basin level.
To incorporate the basin management concept and
further raise the water quality of water bodies,
all countries identified the need for stakeholder
participation and awareness raising, and some
already include stakeholder participation in their
policy processes.
‘‘ Promote participation of the private sector,
civil society and communities in water
management and improve environmental
’’
awareness.
11
Recent Developments and
Future Challenges
All WEPA countries have attempted to strengthen
their water environmental management systems
over the past decade. The “WEPA Outlook on
Water Environmental Management 2012 (WEPA
Outlook 2012)” (refer to http://www.wepa-db.net/
pdf/1203outlook/01.pdf ) identified the following key
developments common to all partner countries:
1) Strengthening of effluent management,
including setting up and revisions to effluent
standards and introduction of wastewater
charges
2) Attempt to Introduce of a framework for river
basin management embracing aspects of water
quality conservation
)
3 Incorporation of concerns surrounding
ecosystem conservation
In terms of developments over the past decade, all
countries have taken up the challenge of dealing with
water quality management issues at the domestic
level. In sum, a framework for water environmental
management has already been established in most
of the WEPA partner countries, leaving the issue of
how to ensure implementation to be resolved. The
following points were identified by WEPA Outlook
2012 as implementation challenges requiring further
information and exchanges of knowledge.
1) Legislation and Organisation: Detailed systems,
rules and capacities to implement a legislative
framework should be developed.
2) Data and Information: Ensuring monitoring of
ambient water quality and effluent, and keeping
records of the results. Capacity development of
staff and budget issues are challenges. Sharing
mechanisms among different organisations are
common issues.
3) Organisational arrangements: Coordination
among relevant water related organisations and
capacity of management at the local level are
key issues for effective management.
4) Water quality management at the basin
level: Conventional water environmental
management is based on administrative
boundaries, but many countries in the region
now incorporate the new concept of river basin
management into water policy or strategies.
Therefore, managing the water environment at
the basin level is an important challenge in the
near future. Stakeholder involvement is also
key in this field.
‘‘ Significant time and resources must be invested to improve water quality and restore aquatic
ecosystems once destroyed. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to strengthen water quality
management in areas where water environmental deterioration has been observed, and to promote
and ensure development and implementation of water environmental management at regional,
national and local levels without delay in order to minimize the impacts of human activities on
’’
the water environment. The key to our sustainable future is ensuring a sound water environment.
12
Why Treat Domestic Wastewater?
Along with population growth and improvement in
quality of life in the WEPA countries, there has been
a remarkable increase in the amount of water used
for domestic purposes. In primarily urban areas in the
Asian region, there have been numerous examples
reported of untreated or improperly treated domestic
wastewater being discharged into public reservoirs,
causing water pollution. As the domestic sector
accounts for the greater part of the BOD load in most
countries and catchment areas, there is an urgent
need in the region to prevent such water pollution via
treatment of domestic wastewater.
BOD load of domestic wastewater
Figure 1 shows the distribution of pollution
sources of BOD in domestic wastewater in Japan.
Accordingly, the per capita daily amount of BOD
load discharged from the laundry and kitchen is
approximately 70% of the total BOD load. It is
evident that the impact of grey water on the water
environment is considerable – hence the demand in
the Asian region to prevent water pollution through
treatment of domestic wastewater.
Current Situation of Domestic
Wastewater Treatment in Asia
Asian countries, particularly in urban areas, tend to
favour centralised treatment under aerobic conditions
by sewerage treatment plants, or individual treatment
under anaerobic conditions via septic tanks. In
answer to this, many countries, especially those
with urgent needs and with low sewerage treatment
coverage, are establishing national plans to develop
domestic wastewater treatment facilities with
specific targets.
Other 23%
total BOD
40g/day
Kitchen 45%
Toilet 32%
Figure 1. BOD load from different sources of domestic wastewater in Japan
(Source: See References)
14
Sewerage Treatment Coverage（％）
Centralised approach
Aerobic sewerage treatment is typically the method
used to treat domestic wastewater, particularly in
urban areas of Asian countries. Figure 2 shows
the latest sewerage treatment coverage rates for
domestic wastewater in WEPA countries. As a result
of investment, the sewerage treatment coverage in
the Republic of Korea and Japan currently exceeds
75%; the rate in Malaysia (peninsular Malaysia and
municipalities only) and urban areas of China falls in
the 60–70% range and Thailand’s coverage rate falls
in the vicinity of 20%. In comparison, the sewerage
treatment coverage rate is less than 5% in other
WEPA countries.
100
80
Sewerage Treatment Coverage
(Black Water and Grey Water)
60
* Chinese data is only for urban area
**Except in Saba h and Sawawak province
40
20
0
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)*
**
of )
08
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0)
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ic 009
1
l
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
b (2
(2
l(
( 20
a
a
d
ia
ar
es
pu a
a
an
DR
di
pa
am
nk
an
es
m
in
in
P
e
l
o
sia
Re ore
a
i
N
ap
n
n
p
h
y
b
J
L
N
a
o
C
K
i
et
ya
m
do
ilip
La
Th
ala
Sr
Vi
M
In
Ca
M
Ph
Country (Year)
Figure 2. Service coverage rates of sewerage treatment in WEPA countries
On-site treatment (Septic Tank)
In areas without access to sewerage treatment
services, on-site treatment using individual septic
tanks is common, especially in urban areas. Table 1
illustrates the coverage rate in selected countries and
cities. While data is not complete for all countries,
in general it can be seen that in countries where
coverage rates of sewerage treatment are low, the
coverage rate for septic tanks is particularly high in
urban areas.
Treatment using individual septic tanks has issues
in the respect of prevention of water pollution.
One issue is the BOD removal rate of septic tank
treatment, which is 30-60% based on results from
several studies. This rate is lower than the removal
rate of sewerage with aeration. In addition, septic
tanks in some Asian countries treat only black water;
grey water, which has a high BOD pollution load, is
discharge untreated.
Table 1. Septic tank coverage rate in selected
areas/countries
Country
Viet Nam
Year
2008
Area
Coverage Rate (%)
National Average
41
Urban Area
79
Rural Area
26
Malaysia
2010
National Average
21
Philippines
2010
Manila
71
Sri Lanka
N/A
Kandy
87
15
Issues Surrounding Centralised
Approach for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment in Asia
plants, which are more costly than septic tanks, is not
an economically feasible option in these countries.
Huge construction cost
In order to mitigate and prevent water pollution,
domestic wastewater, including both grey water and
black water, should be adequately treated by high
performance treatment processes with effective
pollution removal rates, especially in areas without
access to sewerage treatment. However, according to
United Nations data (UNDP 2006), the construction
of sewage treatment plants is two to three times more
costly than the installation of septic tanks. In fact, an
examination of the relationship between the coverage
ratio for sewerage treatment in WEPA countries
and per capita GDP (see figure 3) reveals a certain
positive correlation. In most Asian countries where
the coverage ratio for sewerage treatment is still low,
the per capita GDP remains below 4,000 USD, thus
the construction of large-scale sewage treatment
Operational issues of centralised system
Operational issues of sewerage treatment plants
following construction and entering operational stages
have been reported in some Asian countries. Cases
have been observed where residents not wishing to
pay sewage fees do not connect to the service despite
living in the coverage area. Accordingly, inflow
falls short of the treatment capacity. Moreover, the
inability to collect sewage treatment fees from most
treatment plant users in Thailand has resulted in the
use of public finances from local governments to
cover operational costs. In recent years, more regional
governments have called for more to be done for
the collection of sewage treatment fees, and central
governments are working on setting regulations on
procedures to enable such to take place. Nevertheless,
many difficulties remain in the actual collection of
these fees.
Sewerage Treatment ratio (%)
100
Republic of Korea
80
China*
Japan
Malaysia**
60
40
Thailand
20
Philippines, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
GDP per Capita (curent-USD)
* Sewerage treatment ratio of China is only for urban area
**Sewerage treatment ratio of Malaysia is except for Sabah and Sawawak province
Figure 3. Relationship between sewerage treatment coverage rate and GDP per capita in WEPA countries
16
Potential of Decentralised
Approach as Alternative to
Centralised Treatment
It should be noted that a decentralised approach is
being actively employed in WEPA countries as an
alternative to centralised treatment. While smallscale decentralised sewage treatment plants are
generally constructed in regions with low population
densities, as is common in Japan and rural areas of
China, a decentralised approach is being employed
even in Malaysia and Manila in the Philippines. In
addition to governmental sectors, there are various
actors involved in decentralised domestic wastewater
management in the Asian region, including individual
households, communities and the private sector.
On-site management by individual households
(Johkasou)
In Japan, an on-site treatment system named
Johkasou is widely used for domestic wastewater
treatment, especially in regions with low population
densities. The system is currently used by 10% of
the population. Because it was realised that grey
water had a negative on the environment, making
new installations of Johkasou that only treat black
water is now prohibited by law. An anaerobic filter
contact aeration process is utilised in most current
Johkasou systems, which is designed to reduce BOD
load in inflow by 90% and produce effluent of less
than 20mg/L BOD level. In principle, individual
households have the responsibility to install and
manage the systems; however, due to limitations
of individual households in terms of technological
capacity and finances, Japan has established a
governmental support system. This is comprised of
structural standards and technological guidelines for
construction and operation, and a subsidy system
for installation, as well as an outsourcing system for
installation and management. This governmental
support enables individual households to install and
operate the Johkasou system properly.
Community-based management
In many regions of Asia, due to social conditions
such as low household income levels and little
public awareness, the necessary preconditions for
domestic wastewater treatment facilities are lacking,
which has resulted in issues such as the previously
mentioned low sewerage connection and service fee
collection rates coming to light. In order to address
these problems, Indonesia has attempted to improve
public awareness by garnering participation from
local residents from the planning stages in regions
where domestic wastewater treatment facilities
are planned. A programme entitled SANIMAS has
been in operation since 2006. Participation from
residents is elicited from planning stages, and the
selection of project sites and technologies, along
with creating community action plans, is conducted
along with local residents. Engaging in construction
and operational management based on this plan
is designed to prompt voluntary participation of
residents in domestic wastewater management.
Communities participating in the project have
steadily increased; domestic wastewater treatment
facilities have been constructed in 395 locations in
22 provinces over the four-year period from 2006
to 2009 and are being operated and managed by
residents.
Photo: Community involvement in construction of small-scale
domestic wastewater treatment plant in Indonesia (SANMAS)
(source: BORDA)
17
Private sector involvement in decentralised
domestic wastewater management
Private companies in the Philippines and Malaysia
carry out the operation of sewage treatment plants
to ensure they are operating efficiently. In 1997, the
Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage System
(MWSS) in the Philippines, which has jurisdiction
over waterworks and sewerage projects in the Manila
metropolitan area, entered a concession agreement
with the private companies of Manila Water and
Maynilad Water Services for the construction and
management of domestic wastewater treatment in
the eastern and western districts of this area. In 1993,
the Sewerage Services Act was enacted in Malaysia
to give jurisdiction to the central government for
sewerage services which had hitherto been managed
by the state governments. Concurrently, the private
company of Indah Water Konsortium (IWK)
was established to operate the sewerage projects,
and in that same year the government entered a
consignment contract with IWK for the operation
of sewage treatment plants in the country. Thus,
nearly all public sewage treatment plants on the
Malay Peninsula are operated by IWK. Furthermore,
a private company called Majaari Services was
established in 2009 in the state of Kelantan on the
Malay Peninsula to conduct operations of sewage
treatment plants. Currently, the operation of sewage
treatment plants by private companies in Manila
and Malaysia is progressing smoothly. At the
time of its establishment in 1993, the Indah Water
Konsortium (IWK) was a self-sustaining private
company. However, it failed to collect sufficient
sewage treatment fees to run the company, thus seven
years later in 2000 the company was nationalised
18
and operations are presently conducted with funds
from the Ministry of Finance. The 2009 financial
report of IWK shows that of the 723 million MYR
annual income, income from sewage treatment fees
was limited to approximately 60%, or 434 million
MYR. Funding from the Ministry of Finance
accounted for approximately 35%, or 250 million
MYR. In this manner, for other regions of Asia as
well, considerable potential may exist in the option
to operate sewage treatment plants by involving
private companies. However, there is the potential
for dilemmas to arise that cannot be dealt with by
private companies alone, particularly in the grey area
between appropriate general sewage treatment fees
and those that take into account the financial status
of residents. As is evident in the case of Malaysia,
ensuring sufficient operational costs are covered
and securing funding from a public institution are
indispensable to the sustained operation of sewage
treatment plants.
Lessons Learnt from Practices of Domestic
Wastewater Treatment in Asia
Appropriate technologies should be chosen based
on natural and socio-economic conditions and level
of development, etc. at the site.
In order to encourage proper installation and
operation, regulations alone are not sufficient.
Governmental support for technological
standardisation, financing, outsourcing and
education is needed.
Proper operation and maintenance, including
charging and periodical monitoring, are required
for sustainable management of domestic
wastewater treatment systems.
References
Boyer, James A., and C.A. Rock. 1992. “Performance of Septic Tanks.” Proceedings of 7th Northwest On-Site Wastewater
Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition. Seattle.
DENR-EMB (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Management Bureau) et al.. 2005.
Philippines Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid. http://esa.un.org/iys/docs/san_lib_docs/Philippines_sanitation.
pdf. Accessed 18 February 2012
Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd. 2009. Sustainability Report 2008-2009. http://www.iwk.com.my/pdf/CSR%20
2009%20.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2014
Japan Sewage Works Association. 1984. Gesuido Shisetsu Keikaku Sekkei Shishin to Kaisetsu 1984 nenban (Guideline for
Plan and Design of Sewerage Works, 1984). Tokyo.
Seabloom, Robert W., D.A. Carlson, and J. Engeset. 1982. “Septic Tank Performance, Compartmentation, Efficiency
and Stressing.” Proceedings of 4th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Disposal Short Course. University of Washington,
Seattle.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2006. Human Development Report 2006. New York.
WEPA (Water Environment Partnership in Asia). 2012. WEPA Database of technologies in operation. http://www.wepa-db.
net/technologies/top.htm, Accessed 18 February 2012
Figure 1. BOD load from different sources of domestic wastewater in Japan
MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). (n.d.). Night Soil Treatment and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
System in Japan. Tokyo.
Figure 2. Service coverage rates of sewerage treatment in WEPA countries
China
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China.2012. Report on the State of the Environment in
China 2010 (in Chinese). http://zls.mep.gov.cn/hjtj/qghjtjgb/201201/t20120118_222703.htm. Accessed 18 February 2012.
Japan
Ministry of the Environment of Japan. 2010. Heisei 21 Nendo no Shorishisetsu betsu Osui Shori Jinko Fukyuu Jyokyo
(Population Coverage with Access to Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facility at the end of FY 2009 by Type of Treatment
Facility. Tokyo.
Republic of Korea
Ministry of Environment of Republic of Korea.2009. ECOREA Environmental Review 2008. Gyeonggi-do.
Malaysia
The Malaysian Water Association.2011.Malaysia Water Industry Guide 2011. Kuala Lumpur
Thailand
Wangwongwatnana, Supat. 2010. “Presentation at International Conference on Construction and Environment” Tokyo,
Japan, 4 February
Other Countries
Estimated by the WEPA Secretariat based on the information provided by each WEPA country.
19
Table 1. Septic tank coverage rate in selected areas/countries
Malaysia
The Malaysian Water Association. 2011. Malaysia Water Industry Guide2011. Kuala Lumpur.
Philippines
Leonor C. Cleofas. 2011. “Pollution Reduction Program in Metro Manila: Sewerage and Sanitation Master Plan of
MWSS.” Presentation at 6th Regional Training Workshop on Integrated River Basin and Coastal Area Management,
Dalian, China. 20 May.
Sri Lanka
Hidenori Harada. 2001. Asia 9 Toshi ni Okeru Mizu Eisei Kankyo Kanri Seiyaku Joken no Ruikeika to Kaizen Tejun
no Sakutei ni Muketa Torikumi (Categorization of Constraint Conditions for Management of Sanitation and Water
Environment in nine Asian cities and Formulation of Improvement Strategies). Gekkyan Jokasou. No. 424: 21-24.
Viet Nam
General Statistics Office of Viet Nam. 2008. Results of the survey on household living standards 2008. http://www.gso.gov.
vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=515&idmid=5&ItemID=9647. Accessed 18 February 2012.
Figure 3. Relationship between sewerage treatment coverage rate and GDP per capita in WEPA countries
[Data for GDP per capita]
Word Bank. 2012. World Bank Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator. Accessed 18 February 2012.
[Data for sewage treatment ratio]
China
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China.2012. Report on the State of the Environment in
China 2010 (in Chinese). http://zls.mep.gov.cn/hjtj/qghjtjgb/201201/t20120118_222703.htm. Accessed 18 February 2012.
Japan
Ministry of the Environment of Japan. 2010. Heisei 21 Nendo no Shorishisetsu betsu Osui Shori Jinko Fukyuu Jyokyo
(Population Coverage with Access to Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facility at the end of FY 2009 by Type of Treatment
Facility. Tokyo.
Republic of Korea
Ministry of Environment of Republic of Korea.2009. ECOREA Environment Review 2008 Korea. Gyeonggi-do.
Malaysia
The Malaysian Water Association.2011.Malaysia Water Industry Guide 2011. Kuala Lumpur
Thailand
Wangwongwatnana, Supat. 2010. “Presentation at International Conference on Construction and Environment.” Tokyo,
Japan, 4 February.
Other Countries
Estimated by the WEPA Secretariat based on the information provided by each WEPA country.
20
21
Q1. Could you briefly describe your
responsibility?
My major direct responsibilities are
to formulate policy planning, action
planning, monitoring, and also to seek
appropriate technologies and conduct
or suggest research on new pollution
control technologies. I am in charge of
developing appropriate methods and
means to promote and maintain water
quality, including control, prevention
and solution to environmental problems
caused by domestic wastewater, as well as
establishing effluent standards in order to
control domestic wastewater discharge.
Q2. How do you observe the impact
of domestic wastewater to water
environment and the state of domestic
wastewater treatment in your country?
In Thailand, water pollution is a major
pollution problem which has become
more severe due to an increase in
population and industrial factories in
line with economic growth. Deterioration
of water quality in major rivers, such as
Chao Phraya River, still remains. Based on
important parameters indicating water
quality, the major cause of deteriorated
water conditions was an increase in the
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) value,
mainly due to municipal sewage as well
as wastewater from other activities such
as industrial and agricultural activities.
Wastewater from these activities was
released into water resources without
treatment.
The main cause of deteriorated water
quality was municipal wastewater that
was not sufficiently treated because there
were only 100 wastewater treatment
plants around the country. Promotion of
wastewater treatment plants is still one
of the challenges in domestic wastewater
management in Thailand. There are many
problems related to financial support
for the construction, operation and
maintenance of wastewater treatment
22
facilities, including collected wastewater
treatment fees. Presently government
policy is promoting a decentralized
system by enhancing the installation of
effective on-site system to treat both
black and grey water, and increasing
the construction of cluster wastewater
treatment systems because construction
costs are lower and management is easier.
Q3. What is the benefit of WEPA for
you or your country to be a partner?
WEPA is a good forum which allows
partner countries to share and discuss
their experiences on technology and
wastewater management situations
through workshops and site visits,
including identifying potential solutions
to improve domestic wastewater
management system in Asian countries.
WEPA is also the best source to provide a
database on the status and management
of domestic wastewater in each WEPA
partner country and knowledge to all
those interested in water environmental
issues.
Q4. How do you think WEPA
contributed to the improvement of
domestic wastewater treatment
in your country?
A series of WEPA workshops on domestic
wastewater treatment enhanced the
knowledge on domestic wastewater
management and administration,
including wastewater treatment facility
installation through sharing other
countries’ experiences. The lessons
learned such as management framework,
technology, law enforcement strategies
and economic instrument (incentives),
helped us to develop the Domestic
Wastewater Management Plan in Thailand.
The plan is currently under preparation for
the improvement of water environmental
management in Thailand.
Q5. What is your expectation for
WEPA?
I would like to expect that WEPA will
be of great help in the area of sharing
experience, ideas for solutions and
extending collaboration on domestic
wastewater management including
other environmental issues among the
partner countries. I further expect that
WEPA will be a very good venue for
partner countries to discuss thoroughly
on the feasibility approach and how
we can improve domestic wastewater
management by setting up and using
frameworks/guidelines to guide
administrative actions and decisions in
each country. Knowledge-sharing for
solutions should be further promoted
under WEPA through issue-based group
meetings among countries with similar
problems. I also expect that my knowledge
will be enhance to develop good insight in
the field of technology and management
strategies and I hope that this will lead
to formulating the Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan for Thailand.
Wilasinee Saktaywin
Environmentalist
Pollution Control Department
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Thailand
Q4. How WEPA contributed to the
improvement of domestic wastewater
treatment in your country?
Mark Tom Mulingbayan
Department Head
Environment Department
Manila Water Company
Philippines
Mark Tom Mulingbayan is an expert who participated in the WEPA meetings as an
expert on domestic wastewater and shared the experiences of Manila Water Company
in domestic wastewater management.
responsibility?
Our office attends to environmental legal
compliance of all projects and operating
facilities of the company (including
subsidiaries) and takes an active role in
planning and implementing environmental
sustainability initiatives whose objectives
align with business goals while developing
the environmental champion in all our
internal and external stakeholders.
Q2. What is benefits to participate in
WEPA?
WEPA allows us to benchmark our current
performance with our industry peers
across the region, and allows us to pick
up best practices and lessons learned
from them, while at the same time, it
gives us the opportunity to share our own
learnings and successes in implementing
our own water quality improvement and
wastewater management program.
24
of domestic wastewater to water
Numerous studies on the total organic
pollution in the Philippines indicate that
more than 50% of the total pollution
originates from domestic sources.
Majority of the cities and municipalities
in the country currently have very low
service coverage in terms of sewerage,
and the investments in sanitation are
disproportionately low compared
to investments in water supply. The
typical sanitation scheme in Filipino
households uses septic tanks for black
water with literally no capture and
treatment of greywater. It is no surprise
that many waterways, not just in the
urbanized areas, suffer from excessive
organic pollution and coliform levels.
The Clean Water Act of 2004 requires
local governments and water utilities to
develop their own sewerage and septage
management plans but currently very few
cities have an actual master plan with real
projects in the pipeline.
Our involvement in WEPA allowed us a
close look into the details of wastewater
service expansion challenges of our peers
across the region and validated some of
the challenges we faced in Metro Manila.
For example, Thailand encountered low
BOD in their influents to their sewage
facilities and in the early years of operation
suffered from underutilization – key
issues that we in Manila also encountered
and have had difficulty explaining to
regulators. This has led us to commission
full blown studies to adequately
investigate these phenomena with the
intention of either avoiding the same
planning issues again, or at the very least
understand the localized fundamentals
in the wastewater scene in Southeast
Asia that may be different from that of
Western countries. In the discussions we
have had with our peers, it also became
apparent that the way public utilities are
regulated is pretty much the same as that
of private industries; the unique nature of
public water utilities obviously needs to be
taken into consideration especially when
it comes to performance expectations and
technical regulation.
WEPA?
It is our wish that the partnerships
established within WEPA be sustained for
years to come, that we welcome more
strategic partners into the fold in the near
future, and that the program be expanded
to incorporate more capacity building
and benchmarking initiatives that result
in better, more responsive policies with
particular focus on the public water utility
sector, and out-of-the-box approaches that
yield measurable improvements on the
ground in the communities that we serve.
Q1. How have you been involved in
WEPA activities?
practice to solve the water environmental
problems in the future for Thailand.
I conducted a study on the management
framework of decentralized domestic
wastewater treatment system in Thailand.
The study aims to assess the current
situation of decentralized domestic
wastewater treatment system applied
in the country. The study included
three main tasks, which are collection
of baseline information, field surveys
including questionnaire surveys with local
residence, and interviews with relevant
stakeholders, such as governmental
agencies, local government and NGOs
responsible for decentralized domestic
wastewater management. I then presented
the output of the study at the WEPA
international workshop in Cambodia held
in 2013.
Q3. What are the good points of
WEPA for you or your country?
of domestic wastewater on the water
Canals and rivers in Thailand are receiving
pollutants from industrial, agricultural
and domestic wastewater. The highest
proportion of wastewater quantity and
BOD loading is from the domestic sector.
Based on my own observation of canals
located in urban areas, where I could
still see that wastewater is being directly
discharged into the canals, the water
quality is worse than in previous years.
This trend is endorsed by a report by
the Pollution Control Department. If we
consider high construction costs and
limited land availability for centralized
wastewater treatment systems,
decentralized domestic wastewater
treatment will be the best available
For me, WEPA really opened my eyes
to another point of view. Technical
researchers, including myself, usually focus
on how to develop advanced treatment
technologies. However, the management
aspect is also significantly important.
I have learnt that, even if advanced
technology is developed and put to use in
water environmental management, it will
not produce the maximum benefit without
good governance. For my country, being
a partner of WEPA is beneficial in term
of knowledge sharing across the region
through databases.
Q4. How did you utilize the
knowledge/information/network you got
from WEPA for the improvement of the
water environmental management
in your country?
WEPA databases provide useful
information related to policy and
technologies adopted in the Asian region.
Government officials can share and learn
for improvement of their strategies.
For me, it was also beneficial to get
information about decentralized domestic
wastewater management system in Japan
that was shared through WEPA activities.
If we can set up both the technology
and management appropriate for each
country, and then provide a condensed
form of this information to the public, we
can achieve a better water environment.
It is vital to raise public awareness and
concern on these issues to ensure they
succeed.
future activities of WEPA?
The data or information provided in
the WEPA database is only one form of
communication. Since users may want
to access the desired information faster,
there needs to be a system to filter or
screen information. A system to transfer
the information into knowledge is also
important. I believe that WEPA could be
one of the most important driving forces
to encourage governments to move
forward and take further actions for rapid
improvement of the water environment,.
This could be achieved if the WEPA
mission went beyond information and
knowledge sharing through the WEPA
database.
Suwanna Kitpati Boontanon
Assistant Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University
Thailand
25
Leonor C. Cleofas
Deputy Administrator for Engineering and Operations
Engineering and Operations Department
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)
Philippines
The mandate of my organization is to
provide potable water, sewerage and
sanitation services to the whole Metro
Manila, Province of Rizal and portion of
the Province of Cavite with a population
of about 15 million, and to do it in an
affordable and equitable manner. In
1997, MWSS invited the private sector to
help with the delivery of these services.
I am mainly responsible for overseeing
the implementation of the MWSS Master
Plan by the two concessionaires of
MWSS, Manila Water Company for the
East Zone and Maynilad Water Services
for the West Zone. I am also responsible
for developing policy directions for
approval by the Board of Trustees.
Based on reports, domestic
wastewater is the biggest source of water
26
pollution of water bodies especially
in urban areas. In the Philippines,
the focus for the past few years had
been the provision of water supply.
For wastewater, the Sanitation Code
requires that households should have
on-site treatment facility, in the form of
septic tanks. However, implementation
of this requirement has not been fully
effected, resulting in some households
directly discharging wastewater into the
environment. In addition, most septic
tanks are improperly designed and not
regularly emptied, thereby reducing
their treatment efficiency. As the
effluent from even the well-constructed
and well-maintained septic tanks still
does not meet the effluent standards
imposed by the regulatory body, the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), additional treatment
is necessary. In the case of Metro Manila
and its neighboring areas, the strategy
is to install interceptor pipes to convey
wastewater from the drainage pipes
(which collect/receive the effluent
from the septic tanks) and divert the
wastewater to sewage treatment plants
prior to discharge to water bodies. A
master plan to cover the entire service
area with sewage treatment plants is
expected to be implemented. In addition,
desludging or removal of the solids
of septic tanks especially in areas still
unserved by sewage treatment plants
is continuously undertaken through the
septage management program. The
septage (highly polluted wastewater
removed from septic tanks) is then
processed/treated in septage treatment
plants.
For areas outside Metro Manila, their
respective water service providers and/or
the local government units are mandated
to undertake domestic wastewater
management programs/projects. A
national master plan has already been
drafted and a government subsidy for
priority areas has been made available.
Capacity building to implement projects
and determining local counterpart fund
sources are steps in the initial stages for
implementation.
With the enactment of the Clean
Water Act in 2004 and the Supreme
Court of the Philippines mandamus
decision in 2008 requiring that the
different agencies that have a mandate
for maintaining the water quality of Metro
Manila should perform their functions,
focus is now given to addressing not only
the domestic source of pollution, but the
other sources as well.
Being part of WEPA reinforces
commitment for water pollution
prevention. WEPA convenes partners to
get together and exchange/share policies
and best practices and technology.
The sharing of regulations and policies
results in a domino effect, because
of the tendency to keep up with the
other member countries in terms of
environmental protection. WEPA binds/
unites the partner countries to advance
water pollution strategies for the benefit
of the succeeding generations.
I expect that WEPA can get the
commitment of member countries
towards water pollution prevention. It
can assist other countries to implement
regulatory frameworks and to develop
the technical capability to identify and
implement solutions/strategies. It can
serve as a catalyst to harmonize or
standardize environmental policies,
regulations and standards of the partner
countries in Asia, similar to what the
European Union is doing. If possible,
WEPA can manage funding from donors
to financially and technically assist in
project development and implementation
of pilot projects.
27
Industrial Wastewater Management
Industrial wastewater has been identified as one
of the major causes of water pollution in WEPA
countries, although its load on water bodies differs
from country to country. With the aim of preventing
or mitigating such water pollution, all WEPA
countries have established management systems in
efforts to enable control over wastewater discharged
from industry. However, challenges remain in
implementation for many of the countries. A review
of water environmental policies and management
through WEPA second phase activities has identified
the need for information exchange to better facilitate
implementation and ensure enforcement of laws,
regulations and rules with the aim of controlling
the quality of wastewater emitted by the industrial
sector as a whole. Responding to this call, the
WEPA secretariat has conducted a literature review,
sent questionnaire surveys to the WEPA focal
points and also held interviews with policy makers
and water experts on the topic in selected partner
countries since 2011. Findings therefrom have been
disseminated through WEPA meetings.
State of Industrial Wastewater
Management
Industrial wastewater in the region – The
industrial sector is not always the largest contributor
in terms of organic pollution load in WEPA partner
countries such as China, the Philippines, Malaysia
and Thailand (refer to “WEPA Outlook on Water
Environmental Management 2012 (WEPA Outlook
2012)”: http://www.wepa-db.net/pdf/1203outlook/01.
pdf ). This is partly because these countries started to
tackle industrial wastewater from the late 1970s and
into the 80s, by which wastewater from factories –
especially large scale factories and those in industrial
zones – was treated to comply with pollution
control regulations. However, industrial wastewater
remains a major source of water pollution in certain
28
basins, where wastewater is emitted without proper
treatment. In addition to organic pollutants, toxic
substances contained in industrial wastewater are of
high concern to policymakers in the region.
The Chinese National 11th Five-Year Plan (20062010) has set an obligatory target of reducing COD
emissions by 10% from that of 2005 levels. Since
2006, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for
822 construction projects failing to satisfy water
quality control regulations were rejected or suspended.
Also, more than 20,000 firms that have discharged
wastewater not meeting the requirements of the
environmental protection law were closed down.
(WPEA OUTLOOK 2012)
Laws and regulations – To prevent or mitigate
pollution from untreated or only partly treated
industrial wastewater, all WEPA partner countries
have legislation in place; most countries have set
up effluent standards that the industrial sector must
comply with. As different pollutants from different
industrial clusters are involved, some countries
classify effluent standards by type of industry. In
general the environmental line agency (environment
ministry) is in charge of pollution control. However,
the responsibility to control industrial wastewater is
also vested in industrial and economic development
sector agencies in some countries, and this leads to
overlapping responsibilities. For industrial zones or
special economic zones containing agglomerations
of factories, different laws and regulations are often
applied, and instalment of centralized wastewater
treatment facilities is mandated under such laws or
regulations. Different agencies, such as industrial
estate authorities, handle water pollution control in
such special zones in many countries.
In most countries industries are required to
provide notification to designated authorities (at
the national or local level) or apply for approval or
permits therefrom before commencing operations
that discharge effluent, the requirements for which
vary by type and size of industry. The Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used to prevent
pollution before the start of operations. For example,
all industries are required to obtain the Environmental
Compliance Certificate, which is issued under the
Decree of Environment Impact Assessment (No112/
PM) for their operations. Cambodia’s Sub-Decree
on Environmental Impact Assessment also requests
all development activities and investments that
require approval from the Council of Development of
Cambodia (CDC) and industries that have obtained
the certificate to follow the monitoring and reporting
requirement of the EIA related guidelines.
For the cases of non-compliance, all countries
already introduced systems for inspection,
governmental guidance and penalties to correct them.
However, such measures against non-compliance
are not always effectively implemented for various
reasons, including but not limited to taking a long
time because of procedural deficiency, uncooperative
attitude of companies, and weak penalty. To improve
and strengthen deficiency of current non-compliance
measures, Indonesia, Japan and Viet Nam recently
revised laws/regulations.
The new law (Environment Protection Management
Law No.32 of 2009 of Indonesia) stipulates stricter
administrative and criminal penalties for noncompliance with provisions stipulated in relevant
laws, including environmental standards/criteria and
effluent standards. (WPEA OUTLOOK 2012)
Effluent monitoring – Monitoring of effluent quality
is a key tool to check compliance with effluent
standards at factories. In principle, all owners of
pollution sources are obligated to monitor effluent
quality throughout the WEPA partner counties. In
Korea and Thailand, on-line monitoring of effluent
was introduced for pollution sources with certain
volumes of effluents. On the other hand, monitoring
is not always conducted by the owners or managers
though it is their obligation, and results are not
always stored for easy access or do not reach
the intended authorities. This means authorities
can neither assess the state of compliance nor
effectiveness of any measures taken. Keeping records
of monitoring results was not an obligation placed on
business entities in Japan until a revision to the Water
Pollution Control Law in 2010 mandated the duty of
recording and storing results, with penalties applied in
the event of non-compliance.
BOX. Questionnaire Survey on Inventories of
Industrial Wastewater
WEPA discussions have identified that one of
the biggest barriers for effective planning and
implementation of pollution control measures is
insufficient inventory data, including information
or data on the water usage of manufacturing
processes, identification and characteristics of
wastewater sources, corresponding chemical
compositions, quantities, variations, discharge
frequencies, pollution control measures, compliance
information and other factors. This data is
necessary not only for effective management but
also to enable choice of appropriate treatment
technologies, and can be used as a baseline for
evaluating the effects of changes in production,
water conservation or regulations and even for
national greenhouse gas inventory development.
To assess the extent of such inventory data
developed in the respective countries, WEPA
conducted a questionnaire survey (10 of the 13
countries answered the questionnaire – Cambodia,
China, Laos, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Nepal,
the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Viet Nam)
and interviews (in Indonesia and Thailand). Results
from the survey show that many countries do not
have inventories at the national level, but do for
certain basins or projects. China and Republic of
Korea were able to provide detailed information
based on their records. Nepal and Sri Lanka do
not have inventories of industrial wastewater, but
Sri Lanka’s Central Environment Authority (CEA)
has conducted an industry survey to identify the
types of industries, location and types of waste
and categorised 44,351 industries depending on
the amounts of pollution they create – high levels,
medium levels and low levels.
29
Encouraging industry to comply with
regulations – Penal systems are sometimes
ineffective in promoting compliance; instead,
governments attempt to do this using other measures.
One of such measures is the PROPER programme
(Corporate Environmental Performance Rating
Programme) in Indonesia, which encourages
industries to comply with environmental regulations
by publishing their environmental performance,
including whether they meet designated effluent
qualities or not.
Japan has introduced provisional effluent
standards that are less strict than the original effluent
standards, which are applied to specific industrial
type not meeting the original standards in order
to encourage technical improvements over certain
periods of time. Malaysia also has rules to exempt
the immediate need for compliance with effluent
standards for treatment facilities that are under
construction or upgrading.
Common challenges – areas requiring
intra-country sharing among
WEPA partners
Through surveys and interviews the following
common challenges among many countries were
identified, with particular focus on the stage of
implementation affected. The figure on the following
page also shows challenges identified by partner
countries in the procedures to regulate industrial
wastewater.
Deficiency of laws, lack of detailed rules for
implantation: In some cases, different laws and
regulations related to industrial wastewater
management have different obligations, which can
lead to confusion on the ground. Some countries
need detailed rules or guidelines for
implementation; for example, if there are no
guidelines and industry uses different effluent
monitoring procedures and analytical methods that
make the assessment of effluent quality data less
reliable and less comparative, and this will create
problems in proving non-compliance.
Weak coordination among agencies: There are a
minimum of two ministries (covering
30
environmental and industrial sectors) at the
national level related to industrial wastewater
management, which creates overlapping
responsibilities, weak coordination and conflicts of
interest (i.e., industrial development vs.
environment conservation) that may negatively
affect implementation in some countries.
Availability of information: Information of
industries and their wastewater – not only number
and type of industries but also wastewater volume
and quality data – is insufficient in partner
countries, especially in terms of institutional
arrangements covering pollution control only
recently formulated or in countries with as-yet low
levels of industrial activity. In particular,
information of small and medium-sized industries
is difficult to obtain despite the high likelihood
that they pollute local water bodies. The lack of
systematically organised and stored inventory data
may prevent effective or strategic planning and
implementation of control measures.
Accessibility of information: Lack of willingness
to share information, as well as lack of
information itself are also barriers for planning
and implementation due to the sensitivity
surrounding industrial wastewater management, as
witnessed by the WEPA secretariat in its industry
sector interviews. There is a sense of distrust and
paranoia concerning how data will be used, i.e., a
worry that data thought confidential may be used
to ‘name and shame’. Further, data sharing
between governmental agencies takes place, which
illustrates weak coordination and can also
complicate data collection by WEPA focal points
in partner countries, as they have to go through
separate sectoral ministries to obtain it.
Lack of human resources: Lack of human
resources in national and local government to
enforce regulations is often pointed out by partner
countries, not only in terms of staffing levels but
also implementational capacity.
Lack of finances: In particular, finances are needed
to establish databases and inventories, as well as
to conduct effluent or ambient water monitoring to
check on the state of compliance.
Low awareness on environmental
conservation of industries/local people
Duplication of laws and
regulations/no detailed rules/
weak punishment system
against non-compliance
Weak
punishments
Capacity of person in charge in
industrial estates/economic zones
sometimes delays or stalls progress
Weak
coordination
between
agencies in
different sectors
Insufficient number
and capacity of
persons in charge
Insufficient number
of staff, technical
knowledge of staff,
or monitoring
facilities
No standards/
official methods to
monitor/measure
Punishment
regulations
No monitoring,
no reporting
Notification/
Registration/
Requests for
permits or
licences
Difficult to know
whether all targeted
industries are
registered (esp. SMEs)
Receive
document/
Approval
Maintain
and
record the
information/
data
No systematic
records or database
Monitoring
and
reporting
Maintain
or
record the
information
Check/
verification
of
report/
effluent
No systematic
recording of the
information
Improvement
plan
Maintain
or
record the
information
Guidance
for
noncompliance
Lack of
cooperation
at company
Inspection
Insufficient
staff
Complaints from
local people
Action by
government
Action by
industries
Duplication of responsibilities,
weak coordination, etc.
Regulatory Authorities (governments)
Figure. Challenges in Industrial Wastewater Management based on the Interviews and Literature Review
31
Climate Change and the Water Environment
Climate change is one of the drivers of change in
water resources and poses challenges to existing
water management practices (Connor 2009). In the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group II
concluded that “higher water temperatures, increased
precipitation intensity, and longer periods of low
flows exacerbate many forms of water pollution, with
impacts on ecosystems, human health, water system
reliability and operating costs (high confidence)”
(Kundzewicz et al. 2007).
In the Asia-Pacific region, events assumed to
be influenced by climate change have already
occurred, and climate change may render a deep,
multi-pronged impact on the water environment.
However, there is not necessarily enough policy
response to address this. In recognition of this,
WEPA selected “climate change and the water
environment and possible adaptation options” as
one of its priority topics in the second phase of its
activities, which started in 2009. Specifically, WEPA
initiated information exchange and discussions on
the potential impacts of climate change on water
environments (water quality and aquatic ecosystems)
through WEPA workshops; it also conducted
literature reviews, fact-finding and surveys on the
topic, all of which are publically available on the
WEPA database’s new archive – climate change and
the water environment.
Impact of Climate Change on Water
Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems in
WEPA Countries
The impacts of climate change include higher
water temperatures, which reduce the amount of
dissolved oxygen (DO) in water and thus its ability
to self-purify. The potential increase of water use
for cooling purposes due to atmospheric warming in
the energy sector is also considered another cause of
32
higher water temperatures.
Furthermore, changes in patterns, intensity and
duration of precipitation also affect water quality.
Intense rainfall over short periods increases the
amount of sediment, nutrients and other toxins
in water bodies due to heavy runoff. Changes in
patterns can lead to sporadic supplies of surface
water, raising our reliance and possibly exhausting
supplies of potable groundwater, and also create
health hazards due to arsenic and fluorine in the
groundwater. Rising sea levels is another threat, as
this leads to salt water infiltrating surface and ground
freshwater systems. The impact on human health
and water quality due to flooding of polluted water is
also identified as a potential risk. Aquatic ecosystems
don’t escape either; for example, warmer climates
may threaten wetlands, one of the key habitats for a
variety of species, and also lead to blooms of exotic
aquatic species at the expense of indigenous species.
The following figure shows examples of changes
in water environments anticipated to result from or
be escalated by climate change from literature and
news items. Although not all have been scientifically
verified, we have already witnessed some of them.
Studies covering Lake Biwa (Japan) and Lake
Fuxian (China) imply that an increase in winter
temperature may have a higher impact on the water
environment. As reported in the studies, high winter
temperatures reduce the extent of winter mixing,
causing DO depletion in the bottom layer of water
bodies (Kumagai et al. 2003), which leads to an
anaerobic state under which the release of pollutants
from bottom sediments may be accelerated. High
levels of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the
Mekong River and Brantas River (Indonesia) in the
rainy seasons were reported and attributed to the
increased intensity of precipitation. Increased runoff
due to heavier precipitation carries more pollutants
from the land to surface water bodies, resulting in
assimilation of biodegradable organic matter by
Climate change impacts
on inland water quality
Exotic tropical fish species appeared in
Korean marine water, such as a large stingray
with a wingspan greater than previously
witnessed, while traditional winter fishes such
as pollack are disappearing. (Jung, 2005).
The Momoge Wetland in the
Songnen Plain dried up due to
the recurrent droughts from 1999
to 2001, as well as construction
upstream and improper use of
groundwater. (Cruz. et al. 2007)
243 lakes in the northern
China disappeared due to
climate change and human
activities. (Ma et al. 2010)
Republic of
Korea
Japan
Increased water temperature may
hamper winter mixing in Lake Biwa,
causing dissolved oxygen depletion
at the bottom layer. Population of an
endemic fish species, Chaenogobius
isaza (Isaza) has decreased as a result.
(Kumagai et al. 2003)
China
Severe damage to seaweeds in the
western coastal area of Kyushu were
observed, due to longer periods of
activity of herbivorous fish with recent
rise in winter ocean temperatures.
(Yamaguchi et al. 2010)
Nepal
In Pong River water temperature
showed a similar increasing trend
with ambient temperature.
(Wirojanagud et al. 2007)
Myanmar
Lao PDR
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Cambodia
Reduced growth rate of catfish and
areas for catfish culture observed in
the mekong delta due to changes in
water level and precipitation patterns.
(Minh et al. 2009)
Sri Lanaka
Malaysia
Massive coral bleaching due to
higher temperature in the Andaman
Sea. (Wapatayotin, 2010)
Almost 90% of corals died in shallow
water near to Jakarta due to an
increase of Java sea temperature.
(Hoeksema and Cleary, undated)
Indonesia
In Brantas River, high depth of rainfall
has caused high TSS in the wet
season. (Sarjiya and Nurleili, 2009)
aerobic microorganisms using DO.
The expansion of human activities in Asian
countries places more pressure on aquatic ecosystems
and exacerbates climate change. We are also likely
to witness the extinction of a number of species
in tropical areas and semi-enclosed seas by 2050
(McMullen 2009).
Adaptation to the Impacts of
Climate Change – the Necessity of
Amassing Scientific Data
Many participants in the WEPA workshops argued
that insufficient data and information, especially
the lack of time-series data, presents a barrier to
33
incorporating climate change concerns into water
environment policies. Thus, in 2010, the WEPA
secretariat conducted a survey on the state of longterm data for atmospheric/water temperature and
water quality, which are key to studying climate
change impacts on the water environment. This
survey was conducted through WEPA focal points
to reveal both how many monitoring points have
recorded data on atmospheric/water temperature and
water quality for over 10 years to date and the types
of parameters used for water quality (refer to “WEPA
Outlook on Water Environmental Management
2012” for more details: http://www.wepa-db.net/
pdf/1203outlook/01.pdf )
Results from survey show that many WEPA
partner countries have insufficient (i.e., less than
10 years) long-term data on water temperature
and water quality, which are needed to understand
trends and correlations in changes thereof; and little
data especially on lakes/reservoirs and estuaries/
coastal areas. Moreover, the survey found that water
temperature/quality monitoring is not conducted
regularly in some WEPA partner countries, and many
of the partner countries do not implement regular
water quality monitoring for basic quality parameters
such as DO, BOD and COD. In addition to these
findings, the survey reveals that different data
regarding water quality is held in different ministries
and organisations in some countries, which is an
obstacle to systematic data management.
Systems to monitor water quality regularly should
also be established, not only to assist in formulating
countermeasures to climate change, but also to
comprehend the state of water quality for current and
future policy responses to water quality problems.
From the results of the survey we can see that WEPA
partner countries have attempted to strengthen
water quality monitoring in recent years; however,
the data collected is insufficient for evaluation of
climate change impacts on water temperature and
water quality. Both water quality monitoring and data
management are insufficiently implemented in some
WEPA partner countries. Therefore, comprehensive
34
water quality monitoring must be ensured so that
data can be used for forming policy related to water
quality improvements and adaptations to the impacts
of climate change.
In Japan, for example, the Ministry of the
Environment initiated a study to investigate the
impact of climate change on the water environment
and possible adaptation options. As a part of the
project, the relationships among atmospheric
temperature, water temperature and organic water
parameters were analysed based on 30 years of
monitoring data. It is often difficult to determine
to what extent climate change contributes to the
observed environmental changes since other stressors
(e.g., population growth, urbanisation and economic
growth) also significantly affect the region’s water
environment, something all WEPA partner countries
are only too familiar with.
Policy Responses: Adaptation
policies/strategies of WEPA partner
countries
Policy responses to the potential impacts of climate
change vary from country to country. To determine
how each partner country has prepared or is
preparing for the potential impacts on the water
environment in both climate change adaptation and
water resource/management policies, the WEPA
Secretariat surveyed relevant policy documents in
WEPA partner countries in 2009 through WEPA
focal point organisations. The WEPA Secretariat also
reviewed policy documents covering climate change
adaptation and the water environment available on
the Internet.
The results of this survey and review show that
water shortage and natural ecosystems, including
coastal and marine ecosystems, are often addressed
in national climate change adaptation policies,
strategies, and other related government documents,
but the aspect of water quality is often lacking in
policy documents. The potential impacts of climate
change and adaptation actions are also not included,
while climate change per se is sometime included, in
policy documents related to management of the water
environment. The fact that insufficient knowledge
and scientific data acts as a barrier to developing
adaptation policies in water environmental
management was also pointed out by several water
experts at a WEPA international workshop.
Future Action of WEPA
The above discussion has revealed the very limited
scientific knowledge of climate change impacts
on the water environment (water quality and
aquatic ecosystems) WEPA countries have. Since
developing countries generally lack time-series
data of water quantity, quality and temperature,
required research facilities and human resources, it
is very important that each country establishes or
strengthens their systems to collect and accumulate
data via monitoring. For future actions, methods or
schemes by which the data can be shared or utilised
between relevant parties and countries also need to
be considered.
It is predicted that overall, water resources will be
subject to a continued negative, rather than positive
impact at the global level, and that this will have a
knock-on effect on other sustainable agenda, such as
food security and poverty (Bates et al. (ed.) 2008).
Therefore, it is crucial to continue efforts to promote
studies and actions by both the scientific community
as well as policy makers.
In addition, in view of the increasingly serious
impacts of natural disasters – such as the 2011 flood
in Bangkok and hurricane Haiyan in the Philippines
in 2013 – it is imperative to deliberate on how to
enhance preparedness and resilience against such
extreme events. This includes measures to minimise
the risks of water pollution which could easily result
from increases in sediments and suspended solids
due to heavy precipitation, as well as health risks
arising from overflows of untreated wastewater and
compromised wastewater/water treatment facilities
due to disasters.
35
References
Bate, Bryson. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, eds.. 2008. Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC Secretariat.
Connor, R., Galloopin. G, Hellmuth M, and Rast, W. 2009. Climate Change and Possible Futures, Chapter 5 of The United
Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World. World Water Assessment Programme. 2009.
Paris: UNESCO, and London: Earthscan
Cruz, R.V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li and N. Huu Ninh, 2007.
Asia. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J.
van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 469-506.
Hoeksema, B.W. and D.F.R. Cleary. (n.d.) “ Climate change and Indonesian coral reef biota.” http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.
nsf/pages/NWOA_79NMMP. Accessed 13 June 2011.
Jung. Eun. 2005. “Global Warning Impacts Korean Fisheries Industry.” Ariang News. 6 November. http://english.chosun.
com/site/data/html_dir/2005/11/07/2005110761004.htm. Accessed 23 June 2011.
Kumagai, Michiko, K. Ishikawa, and N. Ishiguro. 2003. “Impacts of global warming on large lakes.” In Water Resources
System? Water availability and global change. Franks, S., G. Bloschl, M. Kumagai, K. Musiake, D. Rosbjerg. Eds.,
IAHS Res Book 280: 65-69.
Kundzewicz, Z.W., L.J. Mata, N.W. Arnell, P. Döll, P. Kabat, B. Jiménez, K.A. Miller, T. Oki, Z. Sen and I.A.
Shiklomanov. 2007: Freshwater resources and their management. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability”. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 173-210.
Ma, Ronghua, H.Duan, C. Hu, X. Feng, A. Li, W. Ju, J. Jian, and G. Yang. 2010. “A Half-century of changes in China’s
Lakes: Global Warming or Human Influence?” Geophysical Research Letters 37(24): 2-7.
McMullen, Catherine, P. (Eds.). 2009. Climate Change Science Compendium 2009. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP).
Minh, T.H., N.T. Phuong, N.V. Hai, N.V. Hao, S. Jumnongsong, V. Dulyapurk, U.S. Nagothu, P. White, N.W. Abery and
S.S. De Silva. 2009. Perception of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation of Catfish Farming in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam: Focus Group Discussions and Stakeholder Workshop Report. http://library.enaca.org/emerging_issues/
climate_change/2010/aquaclimate-report-2010-annex7.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2014.
Ministry of the Environment, Japan. 2012. “WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management 2012 (WEPA Outlook
2012)”. http://www.wepa-db.net/pdf/1203outlook/01.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2014.
Park, Ji-Hyung. 2009. “Regional Collaborative Research on Climate Change Impacts on Surface Water Quality in Eastern
Monsoon Asia: Towards Sound Management of Climate Risks”. Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research
(APN). http://www.apn-gcr.org/newAPN/resources/projectBulletinOutputs/finalProjectReports/2008/ARCP200804CMY-Park-Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2014.
Sarjiya, A and Dwi Agustiyani, Nurleili. 2009. “Regional long-term data monitoring of Brantas River-Indonesia: trend
of water quality and its implication.” Presentation at the 2nd International Workshop on Climate Change Impacts on
Surface Water Quality in East Asian Watersheds. Sabah, Malaysia, 18-20 Feburary, 2009.
Wipatayotin, Apinya. 2010. “Andaman Sea coral reefs hit by bleaching.” Bangkok Post. 8 May. http://www.bangkokpost.
com/news/local/36984/andaman-sea-coral-reefs-hit-by-bleaching. Accessed 18 June 2011.
Wirojanagud, Wanpen, Suwannakom, S. and Sthiannopkao, S. 2007. “Impact of Ambient Temperature Change on Water
Quality: A Case Study of the Pong River, Northeast, Thailand.” Presentation at the 1st International Workshop on
Climate Change Impacts on Surface Water Quality in East Asian Watersheds. Chuncheon, Republic of Korea, 7-10
October
Yamaguchi, Atsuko, K. Furumitsu, N. Yagishita and G. Kume. 2010. Biology of herbivorous fish in coastal areas of western
Japan. Costal environmental and ecosystem issues of the East China Sea. A. Ishimatsu and H. J. Lie. Eds., pp. 181-190
36
R.M.S.K. Ratnayake
Director (Environmental Pollution Control)
Central Environmental Authority
Sri Lanka
responsibility?
The Central Environmental Authority (CEA)
is the sole authority for implementation
of the National Environmental Act (NEA).
NEA covers protection, management,
and education and awareness of the
environment sector in Sri Lanka. I belong
to the Environmental Pollution Control
(EPC) Division which is responsible for the
environmental protection of the country.
Under this responsibility we mainly focus
on industrial pollution control sector due
to its high contribution to the pollution
and rapid industrial development of
the country. This is done by adopting
38
Q2. How do you observe the state of
water environment in your country?
several strategies such as implementing
the Environmental Protection Licencing
(EPL) system for industrial activities and
compliance monitoring as an regulatory
mechanism as well as providing facilities
for compliance by assisting them in
responsibility?
I am a Senior Divisional Hydrologist, in
the basin study section, Water Resource
Division of Water and Energy Commission
Secretariat (WECS). Currently, I am working
as head of the project implementing unit
of Bagmati River Basin Improvement
Project. The major tasks under my
responsibility are to lead and coordinate
the implementation of the Integrated
Water Resource Management (IWRM)
principle in the Bagmati river basin
and prepare an integrated river basin
development master plan. I am also in
charge of upgrading the existing flood
forecasting and early warning system in
the Bagmati basin. My responsibilities
include establishing a center for water
resource information system including
decision support system and carrying
out legal and institutional strengthening
for IWRM and formation of a river basin
organization.
The natural environment has been
changing due to adverse impacts of
population growth and migration,
urbanization, industrialization,
deforestation, modernization, use of
pesticides and lack of awareness of the
people. Because of these human activities,
water pollution is increasing in both rural
and urban areas of Nepal. Surface water
bodies are commonly used as sinks for
solid waste, and untreated municipal
and industrial wastewater. Disposal of
untreated sewage from rapidly growing
urban areas and discharge of untreated
industrial effluents, as well as excessive
use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
in cultivation are the major contributors
to pollution of water bodies, which
is in an increasing trend all over the
country. Water pollution has a wide
range of adverse impacts on aquatic
life and ecosystem services, agricultural
productivity, human health, in-stream
pollution control. Also we continue to
conduct awareness programmes on
pollution control for industrialists. Acts,
regulation amendments and preparation
of pollution control guidelines for different
industrial sectors are other main duties of
the EPC division.
The industrial sector in Sri Lanka has
developed rapidly since the 1980s, which
has resulted in a drastic increase in the
level of water pollution.. NEA was enacted
in 1980 and CEA was established in 1981
for the effective implementation of the
NEA.
The main water pollution source in the
country is from the industrial sector. Most
large-scale industries have compliance
but this is not the case in the small and
medium enterprises. The number of
industries in the SME sector is very large in
our country, and therefore the cumulative
effect is bigger. On the other hand,
domestic and agricultural activities also
contribute significantly to water pollution.
Non-point sources in the agriculture
water uses, and water availability to
downstream users. Similarly, the Chure
range and its southern foot, the Bhabar
zone, are the recharge areas of the
groundwater aquifers in the Terai Belt
(low land in the country). However,
this critically important recharge area
is being destroyed by deforestation,
human settlements, industrialization and
extraction of sand and boulders from
the river bed resulting in groundwater
pollution and an overall degradation
of the environment. The Terai region
contains sedimentary layers of sand and
gravel deposits interlocked with flood
plains carried by rivers and groundwater
in the region is extremely vulnerable to
arsenic contamination.
Q3. How WPEA contributed
to the improvement of the water
environmental management
in your country?
Unfortunately, we were not able to
participate in WEPA activities as regularly
sector and domestic activities are difficult
to regulate and this is causing an increase
in water pollution from these sectors.
Q3. What is the most beneficial point
of being a partner of WEPA?
Sri Lanka joined WEPA in 2009. Most Asian
countries have similar environmental
issues and they are trying to overcome
them by applying different strategies
and measures. Some of them have been
more successful in some particular sectors
than others. WEPA is a forum for member
countries to discuss and share successful
practices in the environment sector,
especially with regards to water. It is
hoped that the system can be improved in
each country with best practices which can
be applied to other partner countries.
discharge standards by sharing better
systems applied in other Asian member
countries. Sri Lanka is at a very successful
stage in this process.
Small and medium enterprises make a
major contribution to the water pollution
in Sri Lanka and CEA is looking for
low-cost treatment systems for them
considering financial state and existing
pollution control technologies. In this
process we learned a great deal from the
WEPA programme.
In 2012 a WEPA dialogue was
organized in Sri Lanka with the
participation of all relevant stakeholders
in relevant sectors. This resulted in
increased coordination between relevant
institutions in the water sector and led
to the development of contributions for
water pollution control and management
from other relevant institutions.
WECS as a central water planning
agency has primary responsibility to assist
different ministries and other related
departments/agencies associated to
water resources of the Government of
Nepal in the formulation of policies and
planning of projects in the water and
energy resources sector. Hence, as per
my expectation, both WECS and WEPA
can work together to identify the areas
that need intervention at the policy level
to improve the water environment in the
context of Nepal and the overall Asia.
Such areas may include implementation
of results/findings analyzed in the
environmental study regarding
development projects utilizing water
resources; Ecosystem based approach to
water resources management; and Issue
and Impact of climate change on water
environment and adaptation to climate
change in water environment sector.
Q4. How WPEA contributed to the
improvement of the water environmental
management in your country?
The legal framework greatly contributes
to the water environmental management
in our country, and WEPA contributes to
the preparation and review of wastewater
as other countries, and could not make
full use of the knowledge that WEPA has.
However, we would like to make better
use of this very necessary and relevant
information because what WEPA has
done so far is of utmost importance
to countries like Nepal to achieve
environmentally conductive balanced
development approach for water resource
management in sustainable manner.
WEPA?
WEPA is a partnership program on water
quality management improvement in
Asian countries, with the aim to develop
an information platform, and share data,
knowledge and experiences in the region
among countries with similar natural and
socioeconomic conditions. We expect
that WEPA will make contributions
to the capacity building of partner
countries, focusing on government
officials in charge of water environment
conservation.
Kamal Ram Joshi
Senior Divisional Hydrologist
Water and Energy Commission Secretariat
Nepal
39
Vicente B. Tuddao, Jr.
Director for Governance and Enforcement
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Philippines
Erlinda A. Gonzales
Technical Officer as Environmental Consultant
Environmental Management Bureau
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Philippines
responsibility?
Tuddao: I am presently tasked to work as
Director for Governance and Enforcement
of the DENR Field Operations based at
the DENR Central Office, Quezon City,
Philippines. In line with my current duties,
I am taking the lead and facilitating the
review, implementation and monitoring
of Environment and Natural Resources
(ENR) policies and programs and monitor
compliance of field operations to the
existing laws, rules and regulations
pertaining to ENR plans and programs.
In the water sector, I am responsible
to review, recommend and enforce
governance policies, laws and programs
pertaining to water resources and river
basin management and conservation in
the field offices of the DENR.
As head of the Field Operations
Governance and Enforcement of ENR, I am
representing the DENR field operations
in preparation for holding the Philippines
2nd International River Summit to be held
in 2014, as well as serving as WATER AND
RIVER BASINS/WATERHED environmental
lecturer in various international and
national symposia and seminars, and I
am also the official representative of the
national government in the Global Water
Partnership-Philippine Water Partnership.
Gonzales: I have held the position
40
of Chief Environmental Management
Specialist at the Environmental Quality
Division for the past 20 years and also
served as Director of Region IV-A of the
Environmental Management Bureau. I
have been engaged in the formulation
of policies, plans and programs for
environmental management and
pollution control. At present, I am
working as an environmental consultant
for rehabilitation and management
of Manila Bay. The Environmental
Management Bureau plays a leading
role to meet 10 priority targets set under
the Operational Plan for the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy (OPMBCS) that addresses
water pollution control and general
and hazardous waste management,
and we need collaboration with other
agencies in implementation of the
strategy. In relation to the activities under
the strategies, I established a working
arrangement with concerned agencies
to review existing policies and prepare a
comprehensive action plan to ensure the
effective management and protection
of the Bay. The action plan included key
points that could achieve implementation
by local government units (LGUs) and
other national government agencies.
Trainings and workshops on sewerage and
sanitation management were organized
for LGUs and those on environmental
laws for pollution control officers at
industrial and commercial establishments.
Other activities for protection of the
environment of the Manila Bay include
supervision and technical assistants to
industrial establishments related to water
quality monitoring, mapping of industrial
establishment, and determination of
industrial pollution load from them.
Please explain very briefly about the
state of water environment?
Gonzales: Water environment in the
Philippines varies from high level of
pollution in the highly urbanized centers
to relatively low pollution in the municipal
or less urbanized cities, and relatively good
quality water environment in the upstream
watershed or upstream river basin areas.
On average, domestic waste makes
up 33 % of the total waste generation
followed by livestock (29%) and industrial
sources (27%). Non-point sources of
pollution account for 11% of the organic
load contribution to water bodies. This
data showed that domestic waste is a
major cause of pollution of the water
bodies in the country.
Tuddao: The major pollution sources
of rivers, lakes and bays in highly
urban centers such as Metro Manila,
Cebu, Davao are domestic sources (e.g.
household wastes), with major pollutants
identified as total coliforms/E-coli, organic
wastes, nutrients and silts/sediments.
Solid wastes also pose a major threat to
the degradation of water resources due
to indiscriminate dumping, improper
solid waste management at source and
inadequate solid waste disposal sites/
sanitary land-fills. Traces of heavy metals
were also detected and significantly
observed in areas such as in MarilaoMeycauayan-Obando (MMO) River
systems in the Province of Bulacan due to
tanning and jewelry-making activities and
smallscale mining activities (hydraulic
mining) at the Iponan river in Misamis
Oriental, and Campostela river systems
in Mindanao. Heavy siltation of rivers is
also considered a major problem in many
river systems as a result of extensive
land development, agriculture and
deforestation that do not give due regard
to proper measures to control soil erosion
and soil movement/detachment. On the
other hand, depletion of groundwater
resources is very evident in Metro Manila,
Metro Cebu, Iloilo, Cagayan De Oro, and
Metro Davao.
Our country gives priority to
addressing domestic waste that emanates
from domestic sources, as 70% to 80%
of the pollution loadings of Pasig River
and its river systems/estuaries are being
blamed on this kind of pollutants.
Tuddao: WEPA’s most beneficial support of
being a partner to our country is its role as
institutional support catalyst in identifying
and assessing the state of the country’s
water environment and in its guidance
on how we can deal with the issues of
water environment, in consonance with
the current initiatives being undertaken
within the country and initiatives being
undertaken in other Asian countries.
WEPA has evolved into a linchpin
of strong partner where the process,
approaches and strategies of addressing
water environmental issues and concerns
and in generating a common platform
and framework of standards and
criteria on water management towards
institutional integration is very laudable.
Q4. How has WEPA contributed to the
Tuddao: WEPA as a partner has provided
its best contribution to this country
in terms of the promotion of effective
water governance, support for our
educational and information campaign
to improve management of the water
environment in terms of planning,
program implementation and policy
review and orientation. It has also helped
in establishing the understanding of
water environment issues and concerns
through a network of water resources
management approaches and strategies
in Asian countries with its regular
workshops and annual meetings, and
training support program. Its official
website and publication of databases
are very accessible and informative,
espousing the state of the water
environment not only in the Philippines
but also among Asian countries--- despite
differences in socio-cultural, economic
development and institutional levels
aimed at harmonizing standards and
capacities.
Specifically, WEPA has introduced
the benefits of effective wastewater
management through municipal or smallscale waste water treatment facilities
in containing pollutants from domestic
sources instead of a highly centralized
wastewater treatment plants which is
considered very expensive and requires
high maintenance cost. Moreover, WEPA
has continuously advocated the benefits
and advantages of water resources
management through basin approach
which the Philippines has maintained
as a core framework or platform in the
sustainable management and governance
of its 18 priority river basins not only
to ensure sustained good quality water
supply for the stakeholders but also
equally importantly, to address the
burgeoning issues of flooding as a result
of climate change.
WEPA?
Tuddao: WEPA is expected to further
strengthen its partnership with the
Philippines on various fronts such as in
capacity building and technology transfer,
generation of appropriate information
and methodologies appropriate for
efficient and effective management of
water resources, and in the development
of common standards and criteria in
addressing water environment concerns
and problems towards harmonizing the
approaches and strategies, platform/
framework, policies and program support
and implementation guidelines to achieve
the objectives of improved water quality
and in achieving improved water supply
and quality of the environment.
With the current fragmented
approaches and outmoded technologies
being utilized to improve water
environment in some Asian countries like
the Philippines, WEPA may serve as a lead
institution/organization in setting the
mode for improving practices, creating
improved capacities and technical
capability and governance strategies in
managing water resources.
WEPA is expected to further trail-blaze
the integration of databases related to
the state of water environment in ASEAN
countries and may have embarked on
the formulation of capacity development
program to equip the Philippines with
the advances in the improvement of
water quality in the face of economic
development and social progress.
WEPA as an organization is expected
to elevate the campaign for Asian
collaborative and coordinated action on
water environment issues and framework
for action in the global arena, and hence
ventilate the current initiatives of WEPA
member-countries that address the issues
and concerns of water environment and
water resource management as well as
seek international support for global
action in the face of transboundary issues
of pollution movement.
41
Taegu Kang
Senior Researcher
Water Quality Control Center
National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER)
Republic of Korea
responsibility?
I am in charge of managing water
environment information and operating
responsibility?
My responsibility assigned by our ministry
covers a broad range of policy areas,
including review and development of
policies, guidelines and programs related
to the assessment of environmental
pollution and also provision of
recommendations on environmental
quality reflecting the environmental
strategic plan of the country. Checking
and follow-ups of activities implemented
by responsible departments is also
one of my responsibilities. As the vice
chief of Mekong Unit of the Ministry, I
am in charge of reviewing and making
recommendations to Mekong River’s
documents/strategies/action plans (MRCS/
CNMC), including attending the meetings,
negotiations, and others. I am also in the
working group to review Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA) reports and
Environmental Management Plans (EMPs)
which are submitted by development
investors (for private and public project
investments). I am also working as a focal
point of international programs including
WEPA and environmental cooperation
with the Ministry of Environment of Korea.
With reference to the water quality
monitoring and analysis of public water
areas1 – those have been done monthly
42
the water quality monitoring network
program in Korea. Since 2014, I have
been working on the environmental
radioactivity survey especially in surface
water.
by officials of the Ministry of Environment
(MoE), and officials of the Ministry of
Water Resources and Meteorology
(MoWRAM)2, and we can conclude that
water quality at most of controlling
stations are still in good condition3, but we
sometimes observed very few parameters
exceed the standards at a few stations in
the dry season. Water quality samplings
are regularly taken at designated points in
the Mekong River, Bassac River, Tonle Sap
River and Tonle Sap Great Lake. General
parameters of water quality monitoring
are observed including: pH, Temperature,
TSS, BOD, DO, Conductivity, Total
Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, including
parameters of a few heavy metals.
Although water quality at some main
observed areas is good, we are concerned
that water quality would be degraded in
both surface and ground waters if the
management is undertaken carelessly
in parallel to a high acceleration of
population growth, urbanization, industrial
development and other development
activities.
As an observation, water quality
degradation/pollution may occur resulting
from industrial and agricultural sectors
including slaughterhouses and livestock;
urban sewage systems; anarchic/squatter
settlement,floating houses, floating
restaurants,floating business areas;
gemstone mining activities; fresh and
The water quality of surface water and
reservoir has improved largely due to
the implementation of Comprehensive
Water Quality Management Measures in
1996, Master Plan for Water Environment
Management (2006-2015). However, COD
levels did not show any improvement
due to non-degradable organic
pollutants from non-point source.
WEPA is a solid platform to deal with
marine aquaculture practices, and so on.
Industries, residential areas and other
development projects – these sources
are taken into account as causes of
serious negative impacts to the water
environment and human health, and
therefore these sources are being
regularly controlled and monitored in
according with the existing legislations.
The industrial sector has been requested
to properly treat wastewater to meet
national standards, and the MoE monitor
the quality of effluent to be discharged
into receiving waters. Urban wastewater
treatment system should be improved
or facilities need to be constructed
in major cities and provinces to treat
effluents from residential areas properly.
Lastly, all investment projects need to
be elaborately evaluated and monitored
through implementation of EIA and EMP.
Cambodia has been a partner in
WEPA since 2004, and since then, I
think Cambodia has closely carried
out networking with other WEPA
partner countries, especially with the
MoE of Japan and IGES. Through the
international/annual WEPA meetings and
national dialogue, Cambodia has been
able to learn and exchange experiences
1 Ref. to the Sub-Decree on Water Pollution Control (e.g. rivers, lakes, streams, seas, and groundwater)
2 Under the Water Quality Monitoring programme of MRCS
3 Comparing to the water quality standard of the Sub-Decree on Water Pollution Control
our water environmental issues and
solutions, especially concerning domestic
and industrial wastewater and water
environment management policies. WEPA
also has been a contributor to give a
chance to deal with water-related issues
and solutions which the partner countries
have.
Q4. How did you utilise the knowledge
and network you got from WEPA?
It has been useful to find and
share information regarding recent
governmental activities and water quality
problems and their management. For
the past 5 years, WEPA has provided
with other WEPA partner countries
in the context of water environment
management, wastewater/night-soil
treatment, climate change, relevant
policies/strategies implementing, etc.,
and indeed all lessons learned from WEPA
activities have been the most beneficial
points to improve national capacity to
develop policies/strategies and plans in
relation to water environment and climate
change response/adaptation, and its
implementation as well.
As briefly mentioned above, the
national dialogue among Cambodia
and WEPA/MoE of Japan provided more
opportunities to learn from lessons to line
institutions of Cambodia in terms of both
government officials and NGOs in relation
to legal and institutional frameworks,
especially the technical knowledge
towards water environment management.
It is suggested to have further dialogues
with WEPA and successful WEPA partner
countries including exposited field visits.
Q4. How did you utilise the knowledge/
information/network you got from
WEPA for the improvement of the water
in your country?
As indicated before, WEPA provided
some knowledge and awareness on water
environment management. I have certainly
utilized them in several ways within
my work and at regional meetings and
seminars.
information or know-how to the
international community such as bilateral
and multilateral environmental cooperation
with the MOE in Korea. Also, WEPA
played an important role in developing
sustainable joint efforts to improve the
water environment. The good example is
TEMM. We think WEPA-based information
could be a powerful data bank to provide
a cooperative tool to improve water
environment for us specifically about water
use and adaptation for climate change.
more issues concerning basic water
management infrastructure in Asia and
to offer international cooperation for
environmental technology and training
(education) that can broaden experience
and information.
WEPA?
We hope WEPA will contribute to develop
I also utilised the knowledge and
awareness gained from WPEA when I
made recommendations towards the
proper management of water environment
and wastewater treatment to avoid water
pollution during the review of the report
of EIA and EMP submitted from various
public and private development projects.
I sometimes shared the awareness/
knowledge during the discussions at
national and regional meetings and
seminars mostly within the Lower
Mekong River Basin (for the Mekong River
Commission Secretariat – MRCS). During
the process of developing the Procedure
on Water Quality (PWQ) of MRCS including
technical guidelines (for implementing the
PWQ) for protecting human health and
aquatic life, I provided ideas and comments
towards WEPA based experiences, e.g. water
quality parameters toward human health
and aquatic life protection, water quality
monitoring, and etc. Such awareness and
knowledge is expected to be used while
I am still a member of several working
taken by Dr. Young Hun JIN
groups of the Cambodia National Mekong
Committee (CNMC) and MRCS, and I will
carry out reviews of the EIA report and
EMP as I have before.
WEPA in the future?
I think that WEPA dialogue is a very
appropriate way to address problems
and seek solutions including provision
of recommendations based on specific
country needs, and such dialogue should
be held at least once per year according to
national and local requirements. Exposure
visit to WEPA and/or experienced
WEPA partners is another crucial way to
exchange experience and lesson learned.
I expect that the next phase of WEPA will
promote the transfer of technologies
and capacity building to government
officials at national and sub-national levels
towards the “problem-solving”, “pollution
prevention”, and “pollution assessment –
risk management”.
Sokha Chrin
Deputy Director General
General Directorate of Technical Affairs
Ministry of Environment
Cambodia
43
Souphasay Komany
Director of Technical Division
Nam Ngum River Basin Committee Secretariat
Lao PDR
responsibility?
My responsibility is to supervise the
technical matters of the Nam Ngum River
Basin Committee Secretariat (NNRBCS)
responsibility?
My primary responsibility as Director–
General of National Hydraulic Research
Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM) is to lead
the institute in research in water and
its environment. I am responsible for
the direction of my research teams and
the quality of the research outcomes in
order to achieve NAHRIM’s vision as a
national focal centre in the field of water
and environment by 2030. I oversee the
overall management of the Institute.
This position requires me to manage the
institute in accordance with the policy
directions of Malaysia Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment as well as
other country’s policies. On top of that,
with help from my fellow researchers I
provide technical advice to the relevant
departments and agencies to ensure
sound and sustainable water quality
management in the country. Lastly, I work
through exemplary leadership to mark
NAHRIM as an established institute by
practicing and ensuring transparency and
accountability at all levels of operations/
functions.
According to the Environment Quality
Report 2012 by the Department of
Environment Malaysia, out of 473
monitored rivers, 278 (59%) were found to
44
in linkage with the national IWRM and
application to the basin based level in the
Nam Ngum River Basin (NNRB). Major
tasks include implementation of nation
water sector policies, strategies and
legislation to formulate the NNRB plans,
be clean, 161 (34%) slightly polluted and
34 (7%) polluted. The pollution sources
are categorised in point sources (specific
discharges point that entering water body)
and non-point sources (diffuse sources).
Major pollutants for Malaysia’s rivers
are Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD),
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH3-H) and
Suspended Solids (SS). High BOD can
be attributed to inadequate treatment
of sewage or effluent from agro-based
and manufacturing industries. The main
sources of NH3-H were livestock farming
and domestic sewage. The sources of SS
were contributed by improper earthwork
and land clearing activities. These three
parameter’s loading also have significant
impact on river quality. Klang river basin
(Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur)
recorded the highest loading for BOD, SS
and NH3-H in 2012.
As for groundwater quality, there
are 79 monitoring wells in Peninsular
Malaysia, 13 wells in Sarawak as well as
15 wells in Sabah. In 2012, 361 water
samples were taken from these active
monitoring wells and analyzed for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides,
heavy metals, anions, bacteria (coliform),
phenolic compounds, total hardness, total
dissolved solids (TDS), pH, temperature,
conductivity and dissolved oxygen
(DO). The results are compared with the
National Guidelines for Raw Drinking
Water Quality (NGRDWQ) (Ministry of
Health (Revised December 2000)). In 2012,
all the monitoring results were within
and implementation, management and
coordination of data and information
and database in the NNRB at the
national level, involvement in conflict
resolution and disaster management
in the NNRB, facilitation of technical
capacity development, coordination
with international, regional and national
organizations in relevant matters to the
above-mentioned tasks.
The water environment has been
observed by a group of public
agencies and local counterpart in line
with developers and localities. The
NGRDWQ except for arsenics (As), iron
(Fe), manganese (Mn), total coliform and
phenol.
The marine water quality monitoring
aims to identify the marine water quality
status and to determine the degree of
pollution from both the land-based
sources as well as the sea. In 2012,
water quality were monitored at about
168 coastal, 78 estuary and 76 islands
monitoring stations. A total of 579
samples from coastal, 325 samples from
estuary and 190 samples from island
monitoring stations were collected for
analyses based on a newly developed
Marine Water Quality Index. The index was
developed based on 7 main parameters
which are Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Nitrate
(NO3), Phosphate (PO4), Unionized
Ammonia (NH3), Faecal Coliform, Oil and
Grease and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
Management of lakes and reservoirs in
Malaysia falls under different jurisdictions
of different agencies and department,
while monitoring is carried out by the
owners or operators of the lakes and
reservoirs. There are no comprehensive
inventories of lake resources in Malaysia,
but a preliminary assessment listing
suggests that there are over 90 lakes in
the country covering an area of at least
100,000ha and hold about 31 billion cubic
meters of water. It is found that 56 (62%)
were in eutrophic conditions, while the
balance were mesothrophic (A Study on
the Status of Eutrophication of Lakes in
Malaysia, 2004 ).
major key players are Department of
Water Resources which is in charge of
national water environment strategy
development, and the Department of
Pollution Control which is in charge
of issuing and implementing of water
environment management tools, such
as water quality standards. There is also
the Natural Resources and Environment
Institute which is in charge of water
environment, especially water quality
monitoring. These agencies work closely
with their local counterparts and other
related agencies at national and local
levels, including those in the agriculture,
industrial and service sectors. Recent
observation of the water environment
shows that trends of water pollution have
Q3. What is “good” (or “the best”)
point of WEPA for you or your country?
WEPA provides a great platform for
knowledge and information-sharing
as well as exchange of ideas. Member
countries are able to share various kinds
of management experiences ranging
from, but not limited to, water quality
management, policy response and
governance, climate change, domestic
& industrial wastewater treatment and
management. The partnership also helps
to strengthen the water environment
management network within the country
as well as internationally.
Q4. How did you utilise the
knowledge/information/network you got
in your country?
There are three useful topics addressed in
WEPA, namely:
a) Monitoring – Paradigm shift from basin
to sub-basin water quality monitoring
to pollutant loading is helping a more
effective and insightful monitoring
activities on the river healthiness.
b) Governance & Enforcement on
domestic and industrial wastewater
management– Better enforcement
approach to address the water
pollution issues. Policy references help
to ensure country’s regulation and acts
are up-to - date and relevant to the
significantly intensified due to a sharp
increase in the level of private investment,
whilst the level of management capacity
falls farther behind. Most of the pollution
is wastewater from agricultural, mining,
industrial, domestic sources.
Q3. How WPEA contributed to the
WEPA is a forum where we can share
information and good practices on
water environment management that
can be applied and adapted to the local
situation of our country. As Lao PDR is a
lesser developing country in Asia, WEPA
outcomes can provide us with a relative
current water environment.
c) Climate change and water quality
environment – adaptation measures to
address the impact of climate change
on water quality and its environment.
WEPA database is also useful as a
good platform for researchers from
government institutions, universities and
implementing agencies in Malaysia to
have a better view or approach of the
partner countries initiatives which can be
adapted in the research design or during
implementation for better efficiencies,
higher performances and environmental
integrity.
WEPA?
I expect that WEPA will compile
publications, documentations or articles
on technology and water quality
management framework in Asia, and
streamline water quality data on WEPA
comparison on water environment
management of other Asian countries
and elsewhere. It can provide a guideline
of how to manage water environment
effectively and efficiently in the future.
WEPA?
We expect that WEPA will be a good
platform for Lao PDR as well as other
Asian countries in the long run so that we
can share knowledge and experiences on
water environment management for the
mutual benefit of our region.
database to share different technologies
for water and wastewater treatments in
Asia. I would like to see WEPA organizing
various types of twining programs to
promote capacity building for member
countries in order to develop more
knowledge- based human resources,
and hope that it will share more specific
topics and examples on environmental
management in Asia including detailed
information/articles on pollution loading
control and monitoring, decentralized
water and domestic wastewater
treatment, and climate change adaptation
in water quality environment. WEPA is also
expected to provide technology transfer
and knowledge sharing, and create a
database on list of resource persons of
partner countries including corresponding
contacts, emails, addresses, expertise. By
doing this, it will increase the networking
among partner countries and cultivate
more collaborations between partner
countries.
Ahmad Jamalluddin
bin Shaaban
Director General
National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM)
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia
Malaysia
45
pollution issue will be the priority of the
Ministry of Environment to put into the
strategic plan 2015-2019.
Yun Insiani
Head of Infrastructures and Services
Indonesia
responsibility?
My responsibilities are stipulated
based on the Ministerial Degree No.18,
and I am in charge of the tasks and
functions related to pollution control
manufacturing infrastructure services and
domestic waste. These include preparing
policy deliberation material, coordinating
policies implementation, implementation
of technical functions, and monitoring,
reporting, evaluation and analysis about
issues and activities.
46
Q2. What new development is
expected in water environmental
Water is viewed as the resource in favor
of economic growth, so it is critical to
conserve its quality as well as quantity.
In Indonesia, efforts to mainstream the
environment are still in progress. As
the current presidency period will end
next year, so Indonesia will have a new
cabinet, and at present a 5 year work
plan is being formulated. It is a big
challenge to put environment quality
improvement into the newly elected
President’s work program, where water
responsibility?
The planning division is responsible
for the formulation of water quality
management including master plans
and action plans for water pollution
control. It is also in charge of preventing
and mitigating pollution problems and
preparing an annual report entitled
“The State of Water Quality in Thailand’s
Pollution”. This division is the coordinator
for formulation of water pollution control
zones and also acts as the secretariat for
the Water Quality Management Bureau
and its various subcommittees. It also
draws up a yearly budget for water
quality monitoring and management.
The planning division deals with other
organizations to plan solutions to water
pollution problems, and also cooperates
internationally to learn the appropriate
methods and good practices used
in other countries for environmental
planning and evaluation.
Water Quality Management Bureau,
Pollution Control Department conducts
water quality monitoring in the 48 main
rivers. It was found that most of the
water is of good and fair quality at 74%
whereas water with deteriorated and
severe deteriorated quality is 23%.
Holistic information from the analysis
of wastewater quantity and dirt in form
of organic substances in the main river
basins revealed that approximately
134.8 million m2 of wastewater per day
and 6190 ton BOD of dirt per day was
released from different sources. The main
pollution sources come from community
consumption, especially from households
and buildings which have no primary
wastewater treatment system or have
just septic tanks which are not capable
of sufficiently treating wastewater to
meet effluent standards. There are many
parameters such as BOD,COD,FCB and
heavy metals that still exceed the Water
Quality Standards cause by discharging
Indonesia, like other ASEAN members,
has the responsibility to maintain stability
in the Southeast Asian region, and by
participating in WEPA, we can measure
what level of success in controlling the
quality of the environment we have
achieved, especially with respect to
the status of water quality for rivers in
Indonesia compared to other ASEAN
members. We also benefit from the
exchange of data and information on
technology of wastewater treatment
applied in some developed countries and
other developing countries in Southeast
Asia. Through WEPA activities, Indonesia
has also seen the importance of data
management source polluters from either
industry or households and small-scale
activities as a basis for drafting regulations
as well as the refinement of policy
especially in the control of water pollution.
untreated wastewater.
WEPA is one of the international programs
that links many countries, thereby sharing
a considerable amount of information.
We also receive more knowledge, data
and lesson-learned from many cases in
member countries of WEPA. The Pollution
Control Department (PCD) receives further
information and databases through
WEPA’s website, which are helpful to
determine guidelines for implementing
integrated water resources management ,
focusing on water quality.
Q4. How did you utilise the
information and network you got
in your country?
First of all, we have learned lessons from
WEPA member countries, based on which
we try to identify our problems in water
We were also able to learn from other
WEPA partner countries about the
importance of maintaining the quality of
water --- maintaining good water quality
will directly impact the cost of living
communities considering that access to
obtain clean water is increasingly easy
and inexpensive. The cost of treating raw
water for drinking water should be borne
by the Government. Such costs have
become cheaper and the reach of the
clean water services for the community
has become more widespread.
WEPA serves as a hub among Asian
countries in water quality improvement.
Each country has its own different
strategy in dealing with water pollution.
However, the basics that can be drawn
up from those who have successfully
overcome water pollution problems in
respective countries, due to the strong
political will from the country leaders.
Their commitment is the key to success
so that the environment can get along
with industrial growth to reach economic
improvement.
quality management. We found that
Thailand is still not making sufficient
efforts in formulating policies and plans
for water quality management as well
as not carrying out enough practical
actions. A national vision and solution
policy have been set up but there have
been no strategies and implementation
plan for either nation or river basins that
are acceptable and have been efficiently
enforced. The current institutional
structure for water quality management
has made no progress over the past
few years, which has led to nonstandardized and inefficient operations.
The government agencies responsible
for water quality are fragmented, and
the various water quality regulations and
committees, including obsolete laws,
come under different ministries,
For databases and knowledge bases
on water quality management, it is
found that existing information and data
are scattered across various agencies,
sometimes resulting in conflict with regards
to information references. This results
in an inevitable lack of connection and
linkage of comprehensive information.
Finally there is the problem of trying to
integrate participation in management
of stakeholders in public, private sectors,
local government and people.
Water Quality Management Bureau
tries to use WEPA’s module to set new
targets for sustainable water resources
management with participation from
stakeholders, such as establishing
and developing river basins instead of
focusing solely on rivers. It also is trying
to develop mechanisms for encouraging
participation in river basin management
WEPA?
As a forum of communication, I expect
WEPA to have five functions to promote
water environmental protection in
Indonesia. First, WEPA is expected to
facilitate the evaluation of the existing
policy frameworks in Indonesia and
provide input to strengthen the rule
of law in accordance with the water
pollution issues that are being faced by
the national government. By including
local governments, we expect WEPA
to facilitate information exchange of
local actions. WEPA is also expected to
be a bridge to bring together partner
countries with private parties interested
in investing in the improvement of water
quality. An example is related to the
procurement of infrastructure for urban
waste water treatment in particular to
local governments that already have
a master plan sewage treatment. It is
expected that institutional forms and
patterns of public private partnership
can be developed for the operation of
sewerage systems in the metropolitan
area and other large cities. We hope
to facilitate a meeting between the
entrepreneurs in the member countries
of WEPA with entrepreneurs in Indonesia
to exchange information about
wastewater treatment technologies and
the opportunities for cooperation in
terms of technology transfer.
in an integrated manner.
WEPA?
WEPA is expected to continue to serve
as a center for contact and support for
water-related information/data sharing
among member countries. It is also
expected that WEPA will develop a GIS
database related to water resources
for management support. We would
also request WEPA to conduct training
courses for all member countries.
Thiparpa Yolthantham
Director of Planning
Pollution Control Department (PCD)
Thailand
47
Phengkhamla Phonvisai
Director of Legislation and Information
Pollution Control Department
Lao PDR
responsibility?
My responsibility is developing and
amending of the legislation for pollution
control activities and also developing a
database/information system in Lao PDR
as the central government. Currently, I
am coordinating the technical working
group to develop four main regulations
responsibility?
My responsibilities are to develop
environmental strategies and action plans,
pollution management, green growth
strategy development and international
cooperation on environment issues.
The water pollution is one of the major
environmental problems in Thailand. Thus,
the new Ministry strategy is also to pay
attention to water pollution problems
including the establishment of wastewater
treatment facilities, to promote water
reuse and recycling in various sectors, as
well as to encourage public participation
in water management. Since 2011, I
have served as a member (director) of
the Wastewater Management Authority
Board to supervise the administration of
the Wastewater Management Authority
of Thailand and served as Chairman of
Corporate Governance Sub-committee.
In Thailand, the Pollution Control
Department (PCD) under the Ministry
of Natural Resources and Environment
(MNRE) has monitored 48 major rivers.
MNRE-PCD has monitored 600 water
quality sampling stations on tri-monthly
48
for pollution control from now to 2015,
namely.
Pollution control Regulation (proposal
to control air, noise, and soil and water
pollution); Hazardous Waste Management
Regulation (propose to management the
hazardous waste from industrial, mining,
hospital activities) and management
of hazardous waste trans-boundary
movement; Hazardous Chemical
basis and operated 70 sampling stations
in major river basins of the country. The
results of the water quality monitoring
system showed that most natural receiving
waters are in a fair condition. Some
receiving water courses such as the lower
Chao Praya, Tha Chin, Pangpakong in
the central basin, Lam Takhong in the
northern basin and Songkhla Lake in the
southern basin were polluted, particularly
in the areas where receiving pollutants
over carrying capacity were discharged
from various sources of pollution such as
in industrial, agricultural and community
areas. Similarly, the coastal water in the
Inner Gulf and certain highly populated
areas of the Outer Gulf of Thailand show
poor quality, particularly in the areas into
which the four main rivers flow (Mae
Klong, Tha Chin, Chao Phraya and Bang
Pakong Rivers). Despite the current good
condition of the coastal water quality, high
levels of significant pollutants are closely
monitored in many densely-populated
and/or tourist areas of the Andaman Sea.
The main water quality problems are from
excessive organic and bacteria loading
which reflects the insufficient wastewater
treatment facilities in the country.
Domestic wastewater is still a major
source of pollutants contributed to water
pollution problem in the country. The
existing wastewater treatment facilities
Management Regulation (propose to
management the import, using, disposal
and exporting); and Amendment the
National Environmental Standard
(Ambient and Emission Standard).
My organization is the focal point of
environmental management for the
whole country. The water environment in
Lao PDR remains in a deteriorated state,
and a major cause is considered to be
insufficient implementation of wastewater
management in community areas as
well as the discharging of water from
urban industrial and agricultural usages
without treatment. Groundwater quality
in Lao PDR is good in general, and it is
considered potable according to drinking
water quality standards. Groundwater
cover only 22 % of the total amount (15
million m3 /day) of domestic wastewater.
The major aims of WEPA are to encourage
cooperation among member countries
and to promote good governance in
water environment management by
providing necessary, relevant information
and knowledge, through a series of
databases. Information collected through
WEPA annual workshops and other
related activities is shared by the WEPA
Database via the website and during the
workshops. The database is a good source
is utilized in every region of Lao PDR
both for the agricultural and industrial
consumption. Sources of pollution vary
from point source (Domestic Wastewater,
Commercial Wastewater, Industrial
Wastewater, Mining wastewater and
Livestock Wastewater) to non-point
sources (Agriculture originating from
paddy, vegetable fields and forest area).
Among these sources, effluents from
mining activities and industrial wastewater
and urban wastewater are critical pollution
sources in Lao PDR.
Q3. How do you think that WPEA
contributed to the improvement of the
in your country?
Lao PDR is a developing country and
still needs capacity to work on its water
environment. WEPA serves to contribute
of information on water environment in
terms of policies, environmental sound
technologies, public participations in water
environment, and NGO and CBO activities.
This is a good forum for partner countries
to use for exchanging information
especially about best practices on water
quality management in the region and
among 13 partner countries in Asia.
As mention earlier, WEPA supports
the member countries with technical
assistance on water governance
management. WEPA is a good forum for
partner countries to share experience and
best management in water environment
issue. At the same time, it provides a
good chance for developing countries
like Thailand to learn from the experience
of developed countries like Japan and
Republic of Korea.
environment management in Lao PDR by
conducting surveys and analysis, and then
sharing information on water environment
management.
In the near future, I would like to use
information related to policy planning
from WEPA as baseline data to support the
development of a master plan for water
pollution control or the water environment
for Lao PDR. The important information
that is needed now is a database of
surface and ground water quality from
WEPA to support amendments to the
ambient water and effluent standards that
I am now in charge of.
strengthening water environment
conservation efforts in Lao PDR
as well as in other WEPA member
countries. WEPA can also contribute
further to staff capacity building for
Lao PDR’s government to improve
water environment management and
conservation in the future.
WEPA?
I expect WEPA to be a good information
platform that will contribute to
activities under the national water
quality management plan. Wastewater
technologies from developed countries
have been utilized and applied to suit the
situation in Thailand.
WEPA?
I have been involved in WEPA activities
since its establishment in 2004. I would
like to see to progress of the activities
especially implementation on the ground
as well as clear policy on the water
environment. The database has been
developed and used for quite sometime.
To make it more useful, an evaluation is
needed at this stage. Lessons learned
from member countries serve as very
crucial information and knowledge. Thus
the information provided should be
sufficient for the country to learn and
utilize. The database should be regularly
updated and also allow the focal point
from member countries to modify and
input current data. Various media should
be developed and included for example,
VDOs, e-learning etc. The outcome
of each annual workshop should
summarized and produce in these types
of format. For future cooperation, I would
suggest that WEPA should work on a pilot
scale and focus on areas that the member
countries can share and learn from each
other. The theme of each workshop
should come from common problems
on the water environment of the partner
countries. Training sessions could be
held back to back with the workshop so
that partner countries can learn from
developed countries. This will suit the aim
of technology transfer.
Q4. How did you utilize the
knowledge and information you got from
WEPA for the improvement of the water
in your country?
We have developed our water quality
management plan based on public
participation of all stakeholders.
Stakeholders’ involvement activities on
water environment in various member
countries were applied as project
Wijarn Simachaya
Deputy-Permanent Secretary
Thailand
49
Q3. What is best point for your country
by being a partner of WEPA?
Nguyen The Dong
Deputy Director-General
Vietnam Environment Administration
Viet Nam
responsibility?
I am responsible for the International
Cooperation and Science Technology
Department, Biodiversity Conservation
Agency, Centre for Environmental
Technology Consultancy, and the Institute
of Science on Environment Management.
Wastewater from industrial facilities
and industrial zones is the major
source of pressure in inland surface
responsibility?
My position in the Institute for
International Environmental Policy
is senior engineer of international
environmental management policy
research. We provide technical support
to bilateral environment cooperation.
Based on this, we have done a lot
of research on laws, regulations and
management strategy of drinking water
and groundwater, not only on the state
of water environmental management
in China, but also on the experiences of
developed countries or other regions.
Through our research work, we contribute
to our Ministry’s decision-making by
presenting policy recommendations and
international experiences.
Water quality plays a key role in
human health. Water resources and water
environment have become the key factors
50
water environment. Wastewater from
mechanical engineering and metallurgy
contains heavy metals, oil and gas;
textile and paper industry wastewater
contains suspended solids, organic
substances and persistent colorings;
food industry wastewater contains a
high concentration of organic matter, as
well as nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus. Untreated sewage from
residential and tourism areas is a major
cause of water pollution. Surface water
pollution problems caused by untreated
wastewater discharges into the river
basin are becoming more serious.
affecting the quality of development,
so the government in China attaches
great importance to this problem. MEP
in China has carried out a lot of work to
protect China’s water resources and water
environment, and we have made great
progress in water legislation, economic
policy and water treatment technology
and so on.
As a researcher, I receive information
about the state of the water environment
through academic journals, academic
Vietnam Environment Administration
in particular and Vietnam in general
gained so many things by becoming a
WEPA partner. One of the best points is
that through WEPA, Vietnam could learn
best experiences on water environment
management, as well as technologies
and tools of water pollution treatment
from other partner countries, and such
knowledge was useful to improve
the water environment in Vietnam.
Furthermore, Vietnam was able to have
more opportunities to share information
and develop cooperation with other
conferences, media and relevant
websites. Furthermore, as an international
environmental management policy
researcher, I prefer to focus more on
hot topics and key problems on water
in China, by comparing experiences and
lessons from U.S.A, Europe and other
countries through the international
academic communication platform. We
provide related policy proposals to MEP,
and promote good governance of water
environment management in China.
countries to adapt to the impacts of
climate change to the water environment,
and can then develop a variety of
adaptation practices, design better ways
to conserve our water supplies, improve
water recycling, and develop alternative
strategies for water management.
countries in water environment
management through the WEPA
workshops and dialogues.
Q4. How can WEPA contribute
environmental management in your
country?
We have gained so much information
and knowledge related to water issues
such as:
sustainable urban water management,
wastewater management in urban areas,
water quality control, decentralized
domestic wastewater treatment, and
climate change impacts to the water
Q3. What do you think is the benefit
of WEPA for the improvement of
in the region?
WEPA provides a good communication
platform on water environment
management, and also provides
opportunities for neighboring countries
to share their experiences and learn from
each other. I believe that Asian countries
have good potential for cooperation in
this field. In the future I am willing to
invite more experts to join the academic
exchanges and cooperative activities
under WEPA.
Q4. How has WEPA contributed to the
I think the information and knowledge
from WEPA conferences and seminars
can help us to realize the experiences
and lessons of water environmental
management in other Asian countries.
This information can provide reference
WEPA?
environment and adaptation options.
Vietnam is one of the most vulnerable
countries to climate change . The impacts
of climate change on water availability
and water quality will affect many
sectors, including energy production,
infrastructure, human health, agriculture
and ecosystems. Climate change impacts
on water supply and quality will also
affect tourism and recreation. The quality
of lakes, streams, coastal beaches, and
other water bodies that are used for
swimming, fishing, and other recreational
activities can be affected by changes in
precipitation, increases in temperature,
and sea level rise. Vietnam must look at
the experiences, knowledge and lesson
learnt on policies and tools from other
for China’s water environment
management. At the same time,
knowledge, information and networking
can strengthen international exchanges
and cooperation on the issue of water
between Asian countries.
In the coming years, water environment
will become one of the main concerns
for the whole world, especially in the
context of the impact of climate change.
In order to protect the water environment,
it is necessary to make efforts and be
cooperative on water management at
the regional and global level. We are
highly appreciative of the support from
the Japanese Government, the Ministry
of the Environment and the Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies through
the initiative of creating WEPA. We hope
that WEPA can continue to boost further
cooperation between Vietnam, Japan and
other countries in water environment
management.
WEPA?
management. We want to exchange
and communicate with WEPA countries
regarding policies, regulations, pollution
control measures, advanced technologies
and management concepts on drinking
water and groundwater. It would be
better if WEPA held more communication
seminars or specific training programs to
cover these hot issues in the future.
As mentioned, my major is international
environmental policy research, in
particular international policies on
drinking water and groundwater
* All the above comments are my personal
opinions and conclusions, and do not
represent any other person or organization!
Chen Gang
Senior Engineer
Institute for International Environmental Policy
Policy Research Center for Environment and Economy (PRCEE)
Ministry of Environmental Protection
China
51
Q3. What are your expectations for a
future WEPA?
Masanobu Miyazaki
Director
Water Environment Division
Ministry of the Environment
Japan
responsibility?
As Director of the Water Environment
Division, I deal with overall water
environment management in Japan. My
responsibility covers different aspects
of water environment management
such as the establishment or revision
of ambient water quality standards and
effluent standards, the accumulation
and publication of national monitoring
data for ambient water quality, and
discussions about domestic wastewater
management and measures for lake
conservation. Moreover, in order to share
experiences and technologies on water
environmental management obtained
from past activities in Japan with Asian
countries, our division has initiated
various international cooperation
projects to support other countries in
improving their water environment, such
as WEPA, as well as Water Environment
Improvement Projects in Asia and the
Japan-China Water Environmental
Cooperation Project.
Q2. What is your opinion on the
second phase of WEPA?
Based on the knowledge accumulated
and the human network developed in the
first phase, we used the second phase
of WEPA to address situation analysis
on water environmental governance in
Asia. We promoted knowledge sharing
52
on priority topics such as “Domestic
Wastewater Treatment” and “Climate
Change and the Water Environment” so
that solutions can be found for water
environmental problems in Asia. In
the second phase, we shared “Good
Practices” and facilitated discussion
on future actions required for each
country among WEPA partners through
international workshops/symposiums
and WEPA dialogues. Through these
activities, I believe that we were able
to share a diverse range of good
practices in the Asian region such as
community based domestic wastewater
management. The information obtained
from WEPA activities were summarised
into a report entitled “WEPA Outlook
2012” and also used as input in
international discussions such as the
World Water Forum.
On the other hand, it was pointed out
that all Asian countries faced different
levels of water environmental problems.
Taking domestic wastewater treatment
as an example, some countries have
difficulty in the construction phase of
treatment facility, while others face
problems in the operational phase.
Because there is no single solution to
deal with these different problems faced
by various countries, we learned that
we have to take a different approach for
each issue. This is the lesson that we
can take from the second phase of WEPA
and use for future WEPA activities.
We believe that the networking that
WEPA does is beneficial for solving water
environmental issues in Asia, because we
can share a range of knowledge to find
regional solutions. Therefore, we would
like continue to support this partnership.
We would like to try to develop a scheme
within WEPA to discuss and implement
possible solutions for specific issues
in each country on the basis of the
partnership that has been established
in the first and second phases of WEPA,
taking into consideration comments
from WEPA partners. I hope that WEPA
partners will join in this partnership more
actively than ever. I would like to work
on future WEPA activities to strengthen
the partnership so that we can solve
water environment problems in the Asian
region by improving water environmental
governance.
53
Appendix
WEPA Focal Points and Partners
* Current Focal Person (as of March 2014)
* Former Focal Person (last known position)
( )
Cambodia
Sokha Chrin*, Deputy Director General, General
Directorate of Technical Affairs, Ministry of
Environment
China
Chen Gang*, Senior Engineer, Institute for
International Environmental Policy, Policy Research
Center for Environment and Economy, Ministry of
Environmental Protection (PRCEE) (April 2010 - )
Guo Jinlong(*), Deputy Director, Department of
Pollution Prevention and Control, Ministry of
Environmental Protection (April 2009 - March 2010)
Nobuo Yoshida, Director, Water Environment
Division, Environment Management Bureau,
Ministry of the Environment (April 2010 - March 2012)
Yoshiaki Morikita, Director, Water Environment
Masahiro Yasuda*, Deputy Director, Water
Environment Division, Environment Management
Bureau, Ministry of the Environment (April 2013 - )
Takatoshi Wako(*), Deputy Director, Water
Environment Division, Environment Management
Bureau, Ministry of the Environment (April 2010 March 2013)
Indonesia
Laksmi Dhewanthi*, Assistant Deputy Minister for
Environmental Data and Information, Ministry of
Environment (January 2013 - )
Dionysius Johny Kusmo(*), Assistant Deputy
Minister for Environmental Data and Information,
Ministry of Environment ( - December 2012)
Yun Insiani, Head of Infrastructures and Services,
Lao PDR
Souphasay Komany*, Director of Technical
Division, Nam Ngum River Basin Committee
Secretariat, Department of Water Resources, Ministry
Phengkhamla Phonvisai, Director of Legislation
and Information, Department of Pollution Control,
Japan
Masanobu Miyazaki, Director, Water Environment
Ministry of the Environment (April 2013 - )
Tadashi Kitamura, Director, Water Environment
56
Shu Nishi(*), Deputy Director, Water Environment
Republic of Korea
Taegu Kang*, Senior Researcher, Water Quality
Control Center, National Institute of Environmental
Research (NIER)
Myanmar
Tint Zaw*, Deputy Director General, Irrigation
Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
Khon Ra, Directior, Hydrology Branch, Irrigation
Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
Mu Mu Than, Assistant Engineer, Planning and
Works Branch, Irrigation Department, Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation
Malaysia
Baba Bin Hassan, Division Secretary, Water
Resources, Drainage and Hydrology Division,
Ahmad Jamalluddin bin Shaaban*, Director
General, National Hydraulic Research Institute of
Malaysia (NAHRIM), Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environment
Hoo Huey Ching, Research Centre for Water
Quality & Environment, National Hydraulic
Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM), Ministry
Nepal
Kamal Ram Joshi*, Senior Divisional Hydrologist,
Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (2013 - )
Sunil Malla, Joint Secretary, Water and Energy
Commission Secretariat
Mark Tom Mulingbayan, Department Head,
Environment Department, Manila Water Company
Thailand
Wijarn Simachaya, Deputy-Permanent Secretary,
Thiparpa Yolthantham*, Director of Planning,
Pollution Control Department (PCD), Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment
Gautam Rajkarnikar(*), Chief, Koshi River Basin
Management Cell, Water and Energy Commission
Secretariat (2009 - 2012)
Viet Nam
Nguyen The Dong*, Deputy Director General,
Vietnam Environment Administration, Ministry of
Philippines
Vicente B. Tuddao Jr., Director for Governance
and Enforcement, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR)
Do Nam Thang, Deputy Director, Institute of
Science for Environmental Management (ISEM),
Vietnam Environment Administration, Ministry of
Erlinda A. Gonzales*, Technical Officer as
Environmental Consultant, Environmental
Management Bureau, Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR)
Wilasinee Saktaywin, Environmentalist, Pollution
Control Department, Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environment
Sri Lanka
R.M.S.K. Ratnayake*, Director (Environmental
Pollution Control), Central Environmental Authority
Suwanna Kitpati Boontanon, Assistant Professor,
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Mahidol University
Leonor C. Cleofas, Deputy Administrator for
Engineering and Operations, Engineering and
Operations Department, Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System (MWSS)
WEPA Advisory Committee
Motoyuki Suzuki, Professor emeritus at the
University of Tokyo
Mitsumasa Okada, Professor, the Open University
of Japan
Kaoru Takara, Professor, Disaster Prevention
Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University
Kensuke Fukushi, Professor, Integrated Research
System for Sustainability Science, The University of
Tokyo
So Kazama, Professor, Graduate School of
Engineering, Tohoku University
57
List of Activities and Publications
of the 2nd phase
Annual Meetings
Month, Year
City, Country
Number of Participants
(Number of Countries)
5th Annual Meeting
March, 2010
Hanoi, Viet Nam
29 ( 2 )
6th Annual Meeting
February, 2011
Tokyo, Japan
39 (15)
7th Annual Meeting
September, 2011
Manila, Philippine
35 (13)
8th Annual Meeting
February, 2013
Siem Riep, Cambodia
35 (12)
9th Annual Meeting
January, 2014
Hayama, Japan
34 (11)
International Workshops/Seminars/Training Programmes
Month, Year
City, Country
(Number of Countries)
November-December,
2009
Yokohama, Japan
8(4)
March, 2010
Hanoi, Viet Nam
56 (12)
September, 2010
Yokohama, Japan
7(4)
February, 2011
Tokyo, Japan
47 (14)
August-September,
2011
Yokohama, Japan
7(4)
3rd WEPA International Workshop “The Progress of Water
Environmental Management and Domestic Wastewater
Treatment”
September, 2011
Manila, Philippine
74 (13)
International Workshop on Water Environment Partnership
in Asia for Sustainable Water Resources Management
(Co-host with the Science Council of Japan at the 4th IWAASPIRE Conference & Exhibition)
October, 2011
Tokyo, Japan
Approximately 40
4th WEPA International Workshop “Decentralized Domestic
Wastewater Treatment in Asia –how to promote and
manage?”
February, 2013
Siem Riep, Cambodia
58 (12)
November, 2013
Jakarta, Indonesia
Approximately 30 ( 4 )
January, 2014
Tokyo, Japan
Approximately 170
Title of Workshops/Seminars/Trainings
JICA training and dialogue programme: Workshop for
Enhancement of the Governmental Capacity on Water
Environment in Asia Countries
1st WEPA International Workshop “Coping Strategies for
Water Environmental Challenges in Asia”
2nd WEPA International Workshop “Climate Change Impacts
to the Water Environment”
WEPA Group Workshop “Decentralized Domestic
Wastewater Treatment in Asia”
WEPA Seminar “Current Situation and Future Prospect of
Water Environment Governance in Asia”
58
WEPA Dialogues
Month, Year
City, Country
October, 2009
Jakarta, Indonesia
49
December, 2010
Katmandu, Nepal
38
August, 2012
Colombo, Sri Lanka
40
Title of the Events
Month, Year
City, Country
WEPA Side Event at the 6th World Water Forum
“Water Environment Partnership for a Sustainable Future”
March, 2012
Marseille, France
May, 2013
Chaing Mai, Thailand
Year
Note
Dialogue in Indonesia
Dialogue in Nepal “State and Challenges of the Water
Environment in Nepal”
Dialogue in Sri Lanka “Industrial Wastewater Management
in Sri Lanka”
Other WEPA Activities at International Events
Session at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit “Voice from Asia for Better Water Quality –
for discussion toward Post-2015 Development Goals on water”
Publications
Title
Report
WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management 2012 (English)
2012
WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management 2012 (Japanese)
2013
WEPA Policy Briefs
Decentralized Domestic Wastewater Management in Asia – Challenges and
opportunities
Community-based Sanitation – Lessons Learned from SANIMAS Program in Indonesia
On-site Management for Domestic Wastewater in Thailand
Privatization of Sanitation and Sewerage Services – Lessons Learned from The
Philippines
2014
Available on-line only
Urban Domestic Wastewater Management in Vietnam – Challenges and Opportunities
Working for Better Water Quality – The State of Water Quality Management in WEPA
Partner Countries
Water Environment and Climate Change – Policy Challenges
59
Water Environment Division
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8975, Japan
TEL: +81 3 3581 3351, FAX: +81 3 3593 1438
URL: http://www.env.go.jp/en/
WEPA Secretariat
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies [ IGES]
Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan
TEL: +81 46 855 3700, FAX: +81 46 855 3709
E-mail: [email protected], URL: http://www.iges.or.jp/
www.wepa-db.net

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) Second Phase Final

Transcription

Similar documents

Ayder Hospital at Mekelle University, Ethiopia

Islamorada, Village of Islands Preserving Florida`s

Training Agenda - Montana Rural Water Systems

SelectTN -Technology Park II at Holston Army Ammunition Plant

Wrentham OutLet maLL

Sanjay Bhat - Municipalika

Press release – 04/10/05 IONISEUR-F4: equipment for

Leaflet_Linda Olsson_2

Chemical Solutions That Make Water Work